LIBRARY 


JNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA. 


GIFT   OF 


Mrs.  SARAH  P.  WALSWORTH. 

Received  October,  1894. 
Accessions  No.2-^      Class  No. 


LETTERS 


CONCERNING 


THE   CONSTITUTION   AND   ORDER 


ADDRESSED  TO  THE 


MEMBERS  OF  THE  PRESBYTERIAN  CHURCHES  IN  THE  CITY  OF  NEW  YORK. 


TO  W.HICH  IS  PREFIXED, 


A    LETTER 


ON  THE 


PRESENT  ASPECT  AND  BEARING  OF  THE  EPISCOPAL 
CONTROVERSY. 


BY  SAMUEL  MILLER,  D.  D. 

PROFESSOR  OF  ECCLESIASTICAL  HISTORY  AND  CHURCH  GOVERNMENT  IN 
THE  THEOLOGICAL  SEMINARY  AT  PRINCETON,  NEW  JERSEY. 


SECOND  EDITION.      ^ 

V 

:UH; 


TOWAR,  J.  &  D.  M.  HOGAN— PITTSBURGH,  HOGAN  &  CO. 

C.  SHERMAN  &  CO.  PRINTERS. 
1830. 


/a 


Eastern  District  of  Pennsylvania,  to  wit; 

BE  IT  REMEMBERED,  That  on  the  fifth  day  of  October  in  the  fifty-fifth 
year  of  the  Independence  of  the  United  States  of  America,  A.  D.  1830, 
TOWAH,  J.  &  D.  M.  HoGAN,  of  the  said  district,  have  deposited  in  this 
office  the  title  of  a  book,  the  right  whereof  they  claim  as  proprietors,  in 
the  words  following1,  to  wit: 

Letters  concerning  the  Constitution  and  Order  of  the  Christian  Ministry: 
Addressed  to  the  Members  of  the  Presbyterian  Churches  in  the  City  of 
New  York.  To  which  is  prefixed,  a  Letter  on  the  present  Aspect 
and  Bearing  of  the  Episcopal  Controversy.  By  Samuel  Miller,  D.  D. 
Professor  of  Ecclesiastical  History  and  Church  Government  in  the 
Theological  Seminary  at  Princeton,  New  Jersey.  Second  Edition. 

In  conformity  to  the  Act  of  the  Congress  of  the  United  States,  en- 
titled "An  act  for  the  encouragement  of  learning,  by  securing  the 
copies  of  maps,  charts,  and  books  to  the  authors  and  proprietors  of 
such  copies  during  the  times  therein  mentioned."  And  also  to  the 
act  entitled  "An  act  supplementary  to  an  act  entitled'* An  act  for  the 
encouragement  of  learning,  by  securing  the  copies  of  maps,  charts, 
and  books  to  the  authors  and  proprietors  of  such  copies  during  the 
times  therein  mentioned,'  and  extending  the  benefits  thereof  to  the 
arts  of  designing,  engraving,  and  etching  historical  and  other  prints." 

D.  CALDWELL, 
Clerk  of  the  Eastern  District  of  Pennsylvania. 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS. 


PRELIMINARY  LETTER,      -  V 

PART  I. 

LETTER  I.  Introductory,     -  1 

II.  Testimony  of  Scripture,     -  14 

III.  Testimony  of  Scripture  continued,      -  45 

IV.  Testimony  of  the  early  Fathers,  80 

V.  Testimony  of  Some  of  the  Later  Fathers,  110 
VI.  Testimony  of  the  Reformers,     -        -  135 

VII.  Concessions  of  Eminent  Episcopalians,  15? 

VIII.  Rise  and  Progress  of  Prelacy,  183 
IX.  Practical  Influence  of  Prelacy,  &c,  214 

PART  II. 

LETTER    I.  Introductory,  230 
II.  Presbyterian  and  Episcopal  Claims  com- 
pared, 242 

III.  Testimony  of  Scripture  reviewed,    -  265 

IV.  The  office  of  Ruling  Elder  considered,  292 
V.  Testimony  of  the  Fathers  reviewed,  311 

VI.  Testimony  of  the  Reformers  reviewed,  351 
VII.  Testimony  of  Calvin  examined,  389 

VIII.  Testimony  of  the  Successors  of  the  Re- 
formers, 428 
IX.  Rise  and  Progress  of  Prelacy  reconsi- 
dered, 453 
X.  Episcopal  Concessions — Uninterupted 

Succession,  474 


TO 

THE    MEMBERS 

OF  ^HE 

PRESBYTERIAN  CHURCH  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES. 

CHRISTIAN  BRETHREN, 

I  TAKE  the  liberty  to  inscribe  this  volume,  in  its  present 
form,  to  you.  The  original  publication  was  addressed  to 
those  united  churches  in  the  city  of  New  York,  of  which 
I  was,  at  the  time  of  its  date,  one  of  the  pastors.  And 
although  I  still  cherish  the  memory  of  that  relation  with 
grateful  and  affectionate  respect,  and  still  continue  the 
address  which'  was  at  first  adopted ;  yet,  as  the  circum- 
stances which  induce  me  to  present  the  work  a  second  time 
to  the  public,  are  of  wider  extent  than  the  demands  of  a  few 
single  congregations ;  I  wish  to  bespeak  the  attention  of 
the  whole  ecclesiastical  body,  with  which  I  have  the  hap- 
piness to  be  connected,  to  the  subject  here  discussed  :— 
a  subject  which  the  unscriptural  and  exorbitant  claims  of 
a  particular  denomination  among  us  have  invested  with  an 
interest  beyond  that  which  intrinsically  belongs  to  it.  It 
is  the  duty  of  Christians  in  every  age,  not  only  to  make 
themselves  well  acquainted  with  important  religious  truth, 
but  also  to  arm  themselves  against  surrounding  errors; 
especially  those  which,  from  the  plausibility  and  confidence 
with  which  they  are  advanced,  are  peculiarly  fitted  to 
"  deceive  the  hearts  of  the  simple." 

The  following  "  Letters"  were  originally  published  in 
two  separate  volumes ; — the  first  in  the  year  1 807 ;  the 
2 


Vi  PRELIMINARY  LETTER, 

second  in  1809 ;  the  latter  being  an  examination  of  the 
strictures  of  several  friends  of  prelacy  on  the  preceding 
volume.  They  have  both  been  out  of  print  for  a  number 
of  years ;  and  although  frequent  inquiry  has  been  made 
for  them,  it  was  not  supposed,  until  lately,  that  the  demand 
was  sufficient  to  warrant  a  second  edition.  Recent  circum- 
stances, however,  have  led  to  the  belief  that  a  new  and 
corrected  impression  would  be  seasonable,  and  not  unac- 
ceptable to  the  friends  of  primitive  truth  and  order. 

The  original  publication  was  made,  with  much  reluctance, 
in  consequence  of  repeated,  long-continued,  and  violent 
attacks  from  some  high-toned  advocates  of  prelacy,  chiefly 
of  the  state  of  New  York,  where  I  then  resided.  Of  its 
reception  by  my  episcopal  neighbours,  I  will  here  say 
nothing.  But  I  have  the  satisfaction  to  know  that  many 
others,  whose  good  opinion  I  highly  prize,  considered  the 
work  as  a  service  of  some  value  to  the  cause  of  truth.  It 
answered,  in  a  good  measure,  the  purpose  which  I  intended. 
It  satisfied  and  confirmed  numbers,  who  had  been  either 
surprised  or  perplexed  by  the  confidence  of  episcopal  state- 
ments, and  for  whose  instruction  I  was  bound  to  provide 
Having  accomplished  this  design,  I  was  quite  willing  that 
the  work  should  pass  into  oblivion,  with  the  controversy 
which  had  called  it  forth.  And  I  can  truly  say,  that  one 
reason  why  I  felt  so  little  disposed,  several  years  ago,  to 
comply  with  urgent  solicitations  to  reprint  this  manual, 
was,  that  I  was  unwilling  to  take  any  step  which  might 
prove  the  means  of  reviving  or  extending  a  dispute,  which 
I  cannot  consider  as  either  very  honourable,  or  very  pro- 
fitable to  the  church  of  God. 

And,  as  the  original  publication  of  the  following  Letters 
was  prompted  by  unprovoked  and  violent  attacks,  and  was 
made  merely  in  self-defence  ;  so  their  appearance  in  this 
new  form  is  occasioned  by  a  similar  cause.  After  reposing 
in  quietness  for  more  than  twenty  years,  they  have  been, 
recently,  again  called  up  to  public  view,  and  subjected  to 


PRELIMINARY  LETTER.  vii 

attacks  marked  by  great  vehemence  and  confidence.  Of 
these  attacks,  it  is  not  deemed  necessary  to  take  any  fur- 
ther notice  than  to  say,  that  their  violence  and  their 
offensive  imputations  have  created  a  new  demand  for  the 
work,  and  thus  afforded  an  opportunity  of  presenting  it 
again  to  the  public  in  a  more  convenient  form.  This  is 
the  only  reply  that  I  at  present  intend  to  give  to  any 
recent  assailant.  And  I  hope  that  every  candid  reader, 
after  attentive  consideration,  will  be  of  the  opinion  that 
more  was  not  called  for. 

In  preparing  the  work  for  a  second  edition,  I  have 
revised  the  whole  with  as  much  care  as  my  circumstances 
allowed.  And,  although  the  further  reading  and  reflection 
of  twenty  years,  have  enabled  me  to  detect  some  mistakes, 
and  to  reconsider  and  modify  the  statements  in  a  few  places ; 
— yet  I  can  truly  say,  that  the  amount  of  my  modification 
has  generally  been,  to  urge  my  former  reasonings  with 
new  confidence  ;  to  array  my  old  authorities  with  addi- 
tional, instead  of  diminished  force ;  and,  in  general,  to 
manifest  what  I  have  really  felt,— a  greatly  augmented 
assurance  of  the  soundness  of  my  original  conclusions. 

With  regard  to  my  quotations  from  the  fathers,  and 
other  writers,  I  think  it  proper  to  say,  once  for  all,  .that  I 
have  endeavoured  to  make  them  with  all  the  fidelity  of 
which  I  am  capable.  Those  who  are  familiar  with  such 
matters  need  not  be  reminded,  that,  frequently,  out  of  a 
folio  page,  not  more  than  half  a  dozen  lines  have  any 
direct  bearing  on  the  purpose  of  the  extract ;  and  that  if 
these  are  exhibited  without  any  uncandid  wresting  from 
their  connection,  the 'real  spirit  of  the  author  is  set  forth 
with  sufficient  accuracy.  If  in  any  instance,  in  the  follow- 
ing pages,  an  offence  has  been  committed  against  this  sound 
principle,  it  has  not  been  done  intentionally.  It  is,  indeed, 
as  common  as  it  is  easy,  when  an  adversary  is  incommoded 
by  a  quotation  in  the  way  of  authority,  to  complain  of  it  as 
unfaithfully  made,  or  as  disingenuously  separated  from  its 


Viii  PRELIMINARY  LETTER. 

proper  connection.  But  of  the  truth  of  such  complaints, 
every  intelligent  reader  must  judge  for  himself.  I  can 
sincerely  declare,  that  after  an  attentive  review  of  every 
page,  I  have  permitted  nothing  to  retain  its  place  but  what 
I  verily  believe  may  be  firmly  sustained  ;  and  that  if  I  had 
possessed  time  and  health  to  make  further  alterations,  they 
would  have  been  employed  in  adding  what  I  honestly 
deem  new  evidence  of  the  relevancy  and  force  of  every 
thing  that  I  have  advanced. 

Nothing,  my  Christian  friends,  is  further  from  my  inten- 
tion, in  any  thing  which  you  will  find  in  the  following  pages, 
than  to  attack  the  episcopal  church.     I  have  no  hostility  to 
that  denomination  of  Christians.  Those  who  prefer  Prelacy 
to  Presbyterianism,  are  cordially  welcome,  for  me,  and, 
I  am  perfectly  confident,  for  the  whole  Presbyterian  church, 
to  the  enjoyment  of  all  the  advantages  which  they  see  or 
imagine  in  that  form  of  ecclesiastical  government.     I  have 
not  the  least  doubt,  indeed,  that  prelacy  is  an  unscriptural 
error;  an  anwarranted  innovation  on  apostolic  simplicity: 
but  such  an  innovation  as  a  man  may  adopt  with  zeal,  and 
yet  be  an  excellent  Christian,  and  an  heir  of  eternal  bless- 
edness.  To  all  such  Episcopalians  as  Whitefield  and  Her- 
vey  in  former  times,  and  as  Newton,  Scott,  and  others  of 
similar  stamp  in  later  periods,  I  can   cordially  "  bid  God 
speed,"  and  sincerely  rejoice  in  their  success.     Were  the 
world  filled  with  such  men,  I,  for  one,  should  be  ready  to 
say :  Let  their  spirit  reign  from  the  rising  to  the  setting 
sun  !  With  the  utmost  sincerity,  then,  can  I  declare,  that  no 
feeling  of  animosity  toward   Episcopalians,  as  such,  has 
prompted  me    to  speak  in  the  language    of  the  following 
pages.  It  is  my  unfeigned  desire,  and  a  desire  which  becomes 
stronger  as  I  advance  in  life,  that  all  who  have  "  received 
like  precious  faith  through  the  righteousness  of  God,  and 
our  Saviour,  Jesus  Christ/'  may   live  together   "  as  one 
body  in  Christ,  and  every  one  members  one  of  another." 
And  I  can  further  declare  that  it  always  gives  me  sensible 


-     PRELIMINARY  LETTER,  jx 

pain  to  engage  in  any  controversy,  even  in  self  defence, 
which  tends  to  produce  even  temporary  alienation  among 
those  who  ought  to  be  united  by  the  bonds  of  our  common 
hope. 

But  when  Episcopalians  belong  to  that  part  of  their 
denomination — a  very  small  part,  as  I  hope  and  trust — who 
not  only  believe  that  prelacy  is  a  divine  institution,  but 
that  every  other  form  of  ecclesiastical  government  must  be 
rejected  as  rebellion  against  God  :  when  they  persuade 
themselves,  not  only  that  the  human  invention  which  they 
embrace,  is  truth,  but  that  nothing  else  can  be  truth  ;  that 
where  there  is  no  ministry  episcopally  ordained,  there  is 
no  church  at  all,  no  ministry,  no  valid  ordinances,  no 
people  in  covenant  with  God,  and,  of  course,  no  warranted 
hope  of  divine  mercy  through  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  j 
when,  as  a  native  and  necessary  consequence  of  these  opi- 
nions, they  consider  it  as  unlawful  to  indulge  in  any 
religious  intercourse  with  non-episcopalians  ;  and  regard 
it  as  an  act  of  fidelity  to  Christ  to  stand  aloof  from  all  who 
do  not  belong  to  their  own  body,  however  pious  their 
spirit  and  exemplary  their  lives  ;  nay,  however  manifestly, 
in  all  other  respects,  they  may  bear  his  image,  and  do  his 
will ;  when  they  think  it  incumbent  upon  them  to  decline 
every  act  which  would  imply  acknowledging  as  brethren 
in  Christ  the  most  devout  and  heavenly-minded  Christians 
who  do  not  stand  in  their  particular  line  of  fancied  ecclesi- 
astical genealogy ;  and  to  refuse  all  communion  and  co- 
operation with  them,  even  in  the  most  hallowed  work  of 
Christian  benevolence ;  and,  further,  when  they  think  it  a 
duty  to  take  every  opportunity,  in  public  and  private,  to  de- 
nounce non-episcopalians  as  aliens  from  Christ,  and  call 
upon  them  to  renounce  their  principles,  and  attach  them- 
selves to  their  sect,  under  the  heaviest  penalties  j  I  say, 
when  Episcopalians  take  this  ground,  it  is  difficult  to  tell 
wherein  their  principle  differs  from  the  corresponding 
principle  of  the  papists.  They  evidently  take  a  stand  hos- 


x  PRELIMINARY   LETTER. 

tile  both  to  the  letter  and  spirit  of  the  Bible.  They  ad- 
vance claims  alike  presumptuous,  unreasonable,  and  mis- 
chievous. They  teach  doctrines  which  have  an  obvious 
tendency  to  place  an  outward  ceremonial  above  the 
(e  weightier  matters  of  the  law ;"  and  to  turn  away  the 
minds  of  men  from  the  vital  spirit  of  our  holy  religion, 
to  "  fable  and  endless  genealogies,  which  minister  questions 
rather  than  godly  edifying."  In  short,  they  contend  for 
principles,  the  tendency  of  which  is  to  beget  narrow  views, 
sectarian  pride,  and  blind  superstition  ;  and  to  bring  back 
the  darkness  and  the  thraldom  of  those  ages  when  fallible 
mortals  undertook  to  be  the  vicars  of  Christ  upon  earth, 
and  to  make  their  followers  believe,  that  they  held  in  their 
hands  the  spiritual  rights,  and  the  immortal  hopes  of  their 
fellow  men.* 

I  rejoice,  my  respected  brethren,  that  Presbyterians  have 
never  been  chargeable  with  attempting  to  maintain  opi* 
nions  so  unscriptural  and  pernicious.  I  rejoice  that  our 
ecclesiastical  formularies,  as  well  as  our  private  sentiments, 
are,  universally,  alien  from  such  unfounded  claims.  It  gives 
me  pleasure  to  know,  that  we  have  never  un-churched  other 
denominations;  never  denied  the  validity  of  their  ordinances; 
never  consigned  them  to  the  uncovenanted  mercies  of  God ; 
never  stood  aloof  from  any  churches  which  we  considered 
as  holding  the  fundamental  doctrines  of  our  common  sal- 
vation ;  but  have  long  been  in  the  constant  habit  of  recog- 
nizing as  brethren  in  Christ,  and  holding  communion  with, 
all  denominations  who  manifest  any  practical  regard  to  the 
precious  truth,  and  the  holy  living,  which  the  Bible  repre- 
sents as  essential  to  the  Christian  character.  To  this  state- 


*  Those  who  desire  to  see  the  ground  on  which  this  exhibition  of  high 
church  doctrine  rests,  are  referred  not  only  to  the  statements  in  the 
following  letters  ;  but  also  to  the  various  episcopal  publications  circulat- 
ing in  every  part  of  the  United  States,  both  practical  and  controversial, 
which,  by  either  open  avowal,  or  unavoidable  inference,  will  fully  sustain 
all  that  is  here  advanced. 


PRELIMINARY   LETTER.  xi 

ment,  I  am  not  aware,  at  present,  of  a  single  exception.  I 
know,  indeed,  that  we  are  often  stigmatized  as  an  austere 
and  bigoted  denomination.  But  this  has  never  been  owing 
to  our  denying  the  church  character  of  any  of  our  neigh- 
bouring sisters ;  but  to  our  contending  for  what  we  deem 
the  peculiar  and  fundamental  doctrines  of  the  gospel,  and 
endeavouring  to  enforce,  in  our  communion,  that  purity  of 
life,  and  that  abstraction  from  the  fashionable  pleasures  of 
the  world,  which  some  other  denominations  do  not  so  care- 
fully discountenance.  The  truth  is,  Presbyterians,  as  such, 
have  so  little  of  the  spirit  of  sect;  are  so  ready  to  join  with 
all  Christian  churches  in  carrying  on  any  enterprize  of 
piety  and  benevolence  ;  so  ready  to  take  to  their  bosoms 
all,  of  every  sect  or  name,  who  manifest  the  spirit  of  Christ; 
and  so  little  disposed  to  question  the  standing  of  any  eccle- 
siastical body,  on  account  of  its  external  organization,  or 
to  contend  about  church  government  at  all,  that  they  have 
scarcely  enough  of  the  sectarian  spirit  to  defend  themselves. 
It  gives  me  unspeakable  pleasure  to  contemplate  this  fea- 
ture in  our  character  as  a  church.  It  forms  one  among  the 
numerous  evidences  that  we  walk  in  the  footsteps  of  the 
primitive  believers ;  that  we  have  imbibed  something  of 
the  spirit  of  Him,  who,  when  one  of  his  disciples  said, 
"  Master,  we  saw  one  casting  out  devils  in  thy  name,  and 
"  we  forbade  him,  because  he  followeth  not  with  us  ;"  re- 
plied, "  Forbid  him  not,  for  he  that  is  not  against  us  is  for 
us ;" — the  spirit  of  that  holy  Apostle,  who  could  say, 
"  Some,  indeed,  preach  Christ  even  of  envy  and  strife, 
61  and  some  also  of  good  will.  What  then?  notwithstand- 
"  ing  every  way,  whether  in  pretence  or  in  truth,  Christ  is 
"  preached ;  and  I  therein  do  rejoice,  yea,  and  will  rejoice." 
But,  although  Presbyterians  will  not  yield  to  any  oth'er 
class  of  professing  Christians  whatever,  in  liberality  to 
other  denominations ;  yet  when  their  principles  are  assailed, 
there  are  limits  beyond  which  they  consider  silence  as  in- 
consistent with  duty.  When  they  are  denounced  as  "  aliens 


xji  PRELIMINARY  LETTER. 

from  the  commonwealth  of  Israel,  and  strangers  to  the  co- 
venant of  promise  •"  when  they  are  declared,  as  Presbyte- 
rians, to  be  no  church  of  Christ,  to  have  no  ministry,  no 
sacraments,  no  warranted  hope  in  the  mercy  of  God  ;  when 
every  attempt  either  to  dispense  or  receive  ordinances  by 
Presbyterian  hands,  is  pronounced  an  act  of  rebellion 
against  the  Head  of  the  Church  ;  when  we  are  even  repre- 
sented as  in  a  worse  condition  than  the  heathen,  because 
equally  out  of  God's  covenant,  and  resisting  greater  light 
than  they ;  surely  it  cannot  be  wrong  to  say  a  word  in  de- 
fence of  our  principles  ;  surely  it  cannot  be  criminal  to 
"give  an  answer  to  any  one  that  asketh  a  reason  of  the 
(<  hope  that  is  in  us,  provided  we  do  it  with  meekness  and 
"  fear."  Placing  out  of  view  all  regard  to  our  own  reputa- 
tion, as  a  Church,  fidelity  to  our  Master  in  heaven,  as  well 
as  fidelity  to  those  who  look  to  us  for  instruction,  undoubt- 
edly requires,  that  we  show,  if  it  be  in  our  power,  that  "  we 
"  have  not  followed  cunningly  devised  fables,"  but  can 
appeal  "  to  the  law  and  the  testimony"  for  all  that  we  teach 
the  people. 

Allow  me,  then,  my  Christian  friends,  before  you  enter 
on  the  perusal  of  the  following  Letters,  to  state,  with  bre- 
vity, in  this  preliminary  address,  a  few  considerations,  in- 
tended to  show  why  those  high  and  exclusive  claims  which 
our  Episcopal  neighbours  are  in  the  habit  of  urging  with  a 
zeal  and  confidence  worthy  of  a  better  cause,  ought  to  be, 
and  must  be  rejected.  And, 

I.  We  cannot  find  the  least  warrant  for  any  such  exclu- 
sive claims,  IN  THE  WORD  or  GOD.  If  Prelacy  had  been  a 
divine  institution,  and  especially,  if  it  had  been  regarded 
by  the  inspired  writers  as  the  fundamental  and  essential 
matter  which  modern  high-churchmen  represent  it, — 
could  they  have  been  silent  respecting  it?  Can  it  be  ima- 
gined that  they  would  have  left  the  subject  in  obscurity  or 
doubt  ?  When  they  had  occasion  to  speak  so  frequently 
concerning  the  Christian  character  and  hope;  concerning 


PRELIMINARY  LETTER.  xiii 

the  church,  its  nature,  foundation,  Head,  laws,  ministers  and 
interests  ;  it  is  truly  marvellous  that  they  should  be.  expli- 
cit on  every  other  point  than  precisely  that  \v\\ichjure  di- 
vino  prelatists  consider  as  the  most  vital  and  important 
of  all !  Yet  is  not  this  manifestly  the  case,  the  friends  of 
the  claim  in  question  themselves  being  judges?  Have  they 
not  been  constrained  a  thousand  times  to  confess,  that  this 
claim  is  no  where  distinctly  presented  or  maintained  in  the 
New  Testament  ?  When  the  inspired  writers  undertake 
to  tell  us  what  those  things  are  which  professing  Christians 
ought  sacredly  to  regard,  in  order  to  make  good  their  ap- 
propriate character,  on  what  points  do  they  dwell  ?  Do 
they  insist  on  a  particular  line  of  ecclesiastical  succession, 
or  represent  every  thing,  or,  indeed,  any  thing,  as  depend- 
ing on  a  certain  form  of  official  investiture?  Do  they 
tell  the  humble  inquirer  after  the  way  of  holiness  and 
salvation,  that  he  must  be  careful,  first  of  all,  that  he  re- 
ceives the  sacraments  from  duly  authorized  hands ;  and  that, 
whatever  he  does,  he  must  be  found  in  communion  with 
some  bishop,  who  holds  his  office  by  regular  descent  ?  Is 
there  a  syllable  which  has  the  most  distant  resemblance  to 
such  counsel  ?  Assuredly  there  is  not.  No  ;  the  points 
every  where  insisted  on,  as  manifesting  that  the  character 
and  the  hopes  of  men  are  "  such  as  becometh  the  gospel," 
are  genuine  faith  in  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  repentance  unto 
life,  love  to  God  and  man,  and  habitually  endeavouring  to 
imbibe  the  spirit,  to  imitate  the  example,  and  to  obey  the 
commands  of  the  Redeemer.  The  directions  given  are 
every  where  such  as  the  following  :  "  He  that  believeth  on 
"  the  Son  of  God  hath  everlasting  life,  and  shall  not  come 
"  into  condemnation,  but  is  passed  from  death  unto  life  ; 
"  but  he  that  believeth  not  on  the  Son  of  God  shall  not  see 
"  life,  but  the  wrath  of  God  abideth  on  him.  There  is, 
"therefore,  now  no  condemnation  to  them  that  are  in 
"  Christ  Jesus,  who  walk  not  after  the  flesh,  but  after  the 
" spirit.  If  ye  love  me,  keep  my  commandments;  for  he 
3 


xiv  PRELIMINARY  LETTER. 

"  that  saith  he  loveth  me,  and  keepeth  not  my  command- 
"ments,  is  a  liar,  and  the  truth  is  not  in  him.  Let  the 
"wicked  forsake  his  way,  and  the  unrighteous  man  his 
"  thoughts,  and  let  him  return  to  the  Lord,  and  he  will  have 
"  mercy  upon  him,  and  to  our  God,  and  he  will  abundantly 
"  pardon  him.  Not  by  works  of  righteousness  which  we 
"  have  done,  but  according  to  his  mercy  doth  he  save  us, 
"by  the  washing  of  regeneration,  and  the  renewing  of  the 
"  Holy  Spirit.  As  ye  have  received  the  Lord  Jesus,  so 
"  walk  ye  in  him;  rooted  and  built  up  in  him,  and  estab- 
"  lished  in  the  faith,  which  is  according  to  godliness,  and 
"abounding  in  those  works  of  righteousness  which  are  by 
"  Jesus  Christ  unto  the  glory  and  praise  of  God." 

Now,  I  ask,  is  it  conceivable  that  this  could  have  been 
the  tenor  of  the  directions  given  by  the  Saviour  and  his 
inspired  Apostles,  to  inquirers  after  the  way  of  Christian 
obedience  and  hope,  if  they  had  coincided  in  opinion  with 
modern  high-churchmen  ?  I  will  venture  to  say,  it  cannot 
be,  for  a  moment,  supposed.  Can  we  imagine  that  infinite 
wisdom,  and  infinite  benevolence  would  undertake  to  in- 
struct the  members  of  that  great  community,  denominated 
the  Church,  in  their  essential  duties,  and  yet  say  nothing 
about  that  great  point,  without  which,  as  some  think,  all 
her  privileges  would  be  a  nullity,  and  all  her  hopes  vain  ? 
Can  we  believe  that  the  Bible  was  given  for  the  express 
purpose  of  being  "a  light  to  our  feet,  and  a  lamp  to  our 
path,"  in  reference  to  the  great  interests  of  Christians,  as 
individuals,  and  as  a  body  ;  and  yet  that  it  should  not  con- 
tain one  word  of  explicit  instruction  in  regard  to  that  which 
is  alleged  to  lie  at  the  foundation  of  the  visible  church,  and 
to  be  essential  to  its  very  existence,  and,  of  course,  to  the 
validity  of  all  its  acts  ?  That  be  far  from  a  Being  who 
tadapts  means  to  ends  with  infinite  skill,  and  who  does  no- 
thing in  vain  !  The  simple  and  undeniable  fact,  then,  that 
he  particular  organ  ization  of  the  visible  church ;  the  per- 
sons invested  with  the  ordaining  power  ;  and  the  uninter- 


PRELIMINARY  LETTER.  xv 

rupted  succession  in  a  line  of  prelates,  are  not  so  much  as 
mentioned — or,  to  say  the  least,  make  no  such  figure,  in  the 
New  Testament,  as  in  many  volumes  of  modern  episcopal 
origin, — ought  to  be  considered  as  decisive  in  this  contro- 
versy. Had  these  principles  been  entertained  at  the  time 
in  which  the  New  Testament  was  written,  and  regarded  by 
the  inspired  writers  in  the  same  light  in  which  they  are 
regarded  by  some  ecclesiastical  men  at  the  present  day; 
they  could  not  have  been  silent  respecting  them,  without 
forfeiting  all  claim  to  Christian  benevolence,  nay,  to  com- 
mon honesty.  They  would  have  dwelt  upon  them  in  every 
connection  ;  have  repeated  them  at  every  turn ;  and  have 
made  this  subject  clear,  whatever  else  was  left  in  the  dark. 
Now,  as  they,  by  universal  confession,  have  NOT  DONE 
THIS  ;  as  NO  ONE  of  their  number  has  done  it ;  it  is  as  plain 
as  any  moral  demonstration  can  be,  that  the  principles  and 
claims  in  question  were  then  unknown,  and,  consequently, 
have  no  divine  warrant. 

II.  Another  strong  presumptive  argument  against  the 
claim  of  modern  high-churchmen,  may  be  drawn  from  the 
well  known  fact,  that  almost  every  part  of  the  outward 
ceremonial  of  the  visible  church  HAS  ACTUALLY  BEEN 
CHANGED,  FROM  TIME  TO  TIME,  without  affecting  the  ex- 
istence or  order  of  the  spiritual  community.  During  the 
first,  or  patriarchial  dispensation,  those  who  ministered  in 
holy  things,  received,  so  far  as  we  are  informed,  no  formal 
ordination  at  all.  Yet  their  services  were  considered  as 
valid,  and  were  accepted  of  God.  When  the  Mosaic,  or 
ceremonial  economy  was  introduced,  the  first  investiture 
of  the  high  priest  was,  by  divine  direction,  conducted  by 
Moses,  who  was  not  a  high  priest,  nor  even  a  common 
priest,  himself.  On  all  subsequent  accessions  of  the  high 
priest,  he  was  inducted  into  office  in  a  different  manner; 
such  an  officer  as  Moses  having  never  afterwards  officiated 
on  a  similar  occasion.  Before  the  coming  of  Christ,  the 
regular  line  of  hereditary  succession  was  repeatedly  broken; 


xvi  PRELIMINARY  LETTER. 

yet  this  was  not  considered  as  affecting  the  validity  of  the 
high  priest's  ministrations;  and  even  the  Saviour  and  Ijis 
apostles,  notwithstanding  this,  repeatedly  acknowledged, 
from  time  to  time,  the  existing  authority  of  that  officer. 
When  the  New  Testament  economy  was  introduced,  a 
method  of  investing  men  with  the  sacred  office  was  adopted, 
which  had  never  been  connected  with  the  Aaronic  priest- 
hood. This  was  "  the  laying  on  of  the  hands  of  the  pres- 
bytery ;"  for  we  never  find  an  instance,  in  apostolic  times, 
of  an  ordination  performed  without  the  presence  and  co- 
operation of  a  plurality  of  ordainers.  Yet  still  there  was 
diversity  even  here.  Sometimes  we  find  ordinations  perform- 
ed by  apostles  ;  sometimes,  during  their  lifetime,  by  ecclesi- 
astical men  who  were  evidently  not  apostles.  Similar 
changes  and  diversity  of  practice  have  taken  place,  from 
the  earliest  times,  in  reference  to  many  other  ordinances : 
and  yet  the  visible  church,  from  the  family  of  *ftdam  to 
the  present  day,  has  not  ceased  to  be  the  same  in  substance. 
Nay,  it  is  one  of  the  principles  of  "  ecclesiastical  polity," 
in  which  the  friends  of  prelacy,  and  especially  the  highest 
toned  among  them,  have  always  agreed  with  the  "judicious 
Hooker,"  as  he  is  commonly  styled,  that  the  Church  has 
power  to  decree,  alter,  and  modify  rites  and  ceremonies 
at  pleasure.  I  shall  not  now  stay  to  inquire  whether  this 
opinion  be  correct  or  not.  It  is  quite  sufficient  for  my 
purpose  that  the  most  zealous  advocates  for  high  toned 
prelacy,  fully  believe  and  maintain  it ;  and  insist  that  every 
part  of  the  external  organization  of  the  church,  may  be 
added  to,  or  dispensed  with,  at  the  discretion  of  the  church 
herself,  excepting  the  single  feature  of  the  transmission  of 
ecclesiastical  office  and  authority  in  the  line  of  prelates. 
Now,  I  ask,  what  good  reason  can  be  given  why  this  mat- 
ter should  form  the  only  exception  ?  If  various-  other  things, 
confessedly  found  in  the  New  Testament,  may  be  altered 
or  omitted,  without  destroying  the  being,  or  even  the  well- 
being  of  the  church ;  why  should  the  point  of  prelacy  be 


PRELIM1MARY  LETTER.  xvii 

alone  unalterable ;  especially  when  we  find  that  the  mode 
of  investing  with  the  sacred  office,  has  been,  in  fact,  again 
and  again  altered,  and  the  integrity  of  the  church  still  pre- 
served ?  Even  supposing  then,  that  we  actually  found  pre- 
lacy pourtrayed  in  the  New  Testament,  as  a  historical  verity 
in  the  apostolic  age,  which  we  are  very  sure  is  not  the  case ; 
still,  according  to  the  general  principle  of  our  Episcopal 
brethren,  the  church,  if  she  thought  proper,  would  have 
just  as  much  right  to  alter  this,  as  any  other  part  of  her 
external  arrangements.  Besides,  let  it  be  considered  that 
ministers  of  the  gospel  who  are  not  prelates,  are  empowered, 
in  the  Episcopal  church,  to  preach,  and  administer  the 
ordinance  of  baptism.  Now,  in  this  ordinance,  according 
to  the  doctrine  of  high  churchmen,  the  recipients  of  it  are 
regenerated;  that  is,  not  only  brought  into  a  new  relation 
to  the  church,  but  "born  again,"  by  the  power  of  the  Holy 
Ghost.  Does  it  require  less  power,  then,  to  regenerate  men, 
than  to  set  an  individual  apart  to  the  sacred  office?  Is  that 
man  who  is  qualified  to  proclaim  the  message  of  salvation, 
and  to  administer  the  sacraments  of  Christ's  house,  and  thus 
to  separate  between  the  precious  and  the  vile,  destitute  of 
power  to  participate  in  the  work  of  inducting  into  office 
one  who  shall  be  equal  to  himself,  and  qualified  to  perform 
the  same  duties'?  There  is,  surely,  a  wonderful  inconsistency 
here!  I  am  not  ignorant  that  learned  and  eloquent  Episco- 
pal writers  have  attempted,  and,  as  they  supposed,  with 
success,  to  demonstrate,  that,  while  all  the  other  parts  of 
the  external  administration  of  the  visible  church  are  mutable, 
and  may  be  altered  at  the  pleasure  of  the  church,  the 
method  of  successive  ordinations  in  the  line  of  prelates, 
cannot  be  touched  without  destroying  the  very  existence 
of  the  church.  I  am,  however,  so  far  from  being  satisfied 
with  their  reasoning,  that  I  am  more  and  more  convinced 
that  it  leads  to  the  grossest  absurdity  and  error.  That  which 
God  has  commanded,  is  immutable,  until  he  is  pleased  to 
change  it;  and  nothing  else  is  beyond  the  reach  of  modifi- 


PRELIMINARY  LETTER. 

cation  and  change  by  the  church,  excepting  what  u  thus 
enjoined.  To  take  any  other  ground,  may  be  very  con- 
sistent for  Papists  ;  but  for  Protestants,  is  a  high-handed 
departure  from  their  essential  principles.  Now,  the  highest 
toned  prelates  acknowledge,  unanimously,  that  there  is  no 
express  command  in  the  New  Testament,  establishing  or 
enjoining  diocesan  episcopacy.  The  utmost  that  they  con- 
tend for  is,  that  there  are  facts  stated  by  the  inspired  writers 
which  indicate  that  this  form  of  church  government  then 
existed.  Even  this  allegation  is  wholly  unfounded.  No 
such  statement  is  made,  as  has  been  often  demonstrated. 
But  if  it  were,  historic  fact  is  not  divine  command.  To 
maintain,  then,  that,  even  if  prelacy  could  be  proved  to 
have  been  at  that  time  in  actual  use,  it  must  for  ever  re- 
main in  use,  and  can  never  be  dispensed  with,  without  de- 
stroying the  very  being  of  the  church,  is  surely  a  doctrine 
which  comes  with  a  very  ill  grace  from  those  who  assert 
that  every  thing  else  relating  to  the  order  of  the  visible 
church,  however  plainly  represented  in  scripture  as  exist- 
ing in  the  apostolic  age,  may  be  changed  without  incurring 
any  such  penalty. 

III.  Another  consideration  is   worthy   of  notice  here. 

THE  ORIGINAL  REFORMERS  OP  THE  CHURCH  OF    ENGLAND, 

were  so  far  frdm  maintaining  the  divine  right  of  prelacy, 
that  their  avowed  opinions,  and  their  whole  conduct  evinced 
a  different  belief.  In  the  sixth  letter  of  the  first  series,  in 
the  following  volume,  some  evidence  in  support  of  this 
position  will  be  found  ;  and  a  greater  amount  of  testimony 
might  be  arrayed,  to  almost  any  extent.  The  truth  is,  the 
first  reformers  of  that  church  were  substantially  Presby- 
terians in  principle,  and  earnestly  wished  to  conduct  the 
reformation  of  their  church  after  the  model  of  the  reformed 
churches  on  the  continent  of  Europe.  And  when  they  ac- 
cepted a  system  of  discipline  and  order  much  less  remote 
from  the  popish  system,  and  much  less  conformed  to  the 
Helvetic  and  other  continental  churches  than  they  wished, 


PRELIMINARY  LETTER.  xix 

it  was  only  on  the  plea  of  temporary  accommodation  to  the 
prejudices  of  the  times,  and  with  the  hope  of  obtaining  a 
more  apostolic  and  thorough  reformation  afterwards.  This 
is  so  unequivocally  testified  by  the  laborious  and  impartial 
Episcopal  historian,  Strype,  and  by  the  candid  Bishop 
Burnet,  as  well  as  other  historians  of  undoubted  reputation, 
that  it  can  be  doubted  by  no  one  who  has  taken  the  proper 
means  to  inform  himself  on  the  subject.  With  this  fact 
accorded  the  whole  of  their  treatment  of  the  foreign  re- 
formed churches,  all  of  whom  were  Presbyterian  in  their 
ordination.  With  those  churches  the  original  reformers  of 
England  maintained  the  most  respectful  and  affectionate 
intercourse;  recognized  them  as  beloved  sisters  in  Christ; 
took  their  ministers  by  the  hand  as  validly  invested  with 
the  sacred  office  ;  admitted  them  in  various  cases,  without 
re-ordination,  to  preferment  in  their  own  church  ;  and  con- 
sulted them  on  the  various  measures  of  the  day  with  the 
utmost  deference.  But  if  the  English  reformers  had  be- 
lieved in  the  doctrine  of  modern  high-churchmen,  and  had 
been,  at  the  same  time,  honest,  consistent  men,  could  they 
possibly  have  maintained  this  fraternal  intercourse  with  the 
foreign  Protestants  ?  I  do,  not  ask  whether  we  can  consider 
such  a  course  as  probable,  but  whether  we  can  conceive  it 
as  possible?  The  firm  integrity,  and  ardent  piety  of  those 
venerable  reformers  have  been  much  celebrated.  Their 
adherence  to  the  dictates  of  conscience  and  of  God,  with  the 
courage  and  constancy  becoming  martyrs  of  Christ,  has  long 
been  the  theme  of  admiration  and  praise.  But  if  they  had 
taken  the  same  views  of  prelacy  with  many  of  their  modern 
eulogists,  and  yet  acted  as  they  did  with  respect  to  non- 
Episcopal  Churches,  we  should  be  reduced  to  the  necessity 
of  branding  them  as  men  altogether  regardless  of  principle. 
But  they  took  no  such  views.  The  proof  of  this  is  com- 
plete. It  was  reserved  for  their  successors,  as  they  de- 
parted from  the  apostolic  spirit  of  the  reformers,  to  fall 


XX 


PRELIMINARY  LETTER. 


into  opinions,  and  prefer  claims,  as  thoroughly  popish  in 
their  character,  as  they  are  pernicious  in  their  consequences. 

The  foregoing  statement,  moreover,  is  fully  confirmed 
by  the  principles  and  reasonings  which  the  immediate  suc- 
cessors of  the  original  reformers  advanced,  when  they 
began  to  contend  for  the  several  parts  of  the  system  which 
they  thought  proper  to  establish.  It  is  well  known  that  in 
the  early  part  of  the  reign  of  queen  Elizabeth,  when  the 
Puritans  plead  for  still  further  reformation,  and  when  the 
leading  points  of  difference  between  them,  and  the  court 
reformers,  were  disclosed,  the  following  fundamental 
principles  were  avowed  by  the  two  parties  respectively. 

In  the  first  place,  it  was  agreed  on  all  sides,  that  the 
Holy  Scripteres  were  a  perfect  rule  of 'faith;  but  the  bishops 
and  court  reformers  did  not  allow  them  to  be  a  standard  of 
discipline.®?  church  government;  affirming  that  our  Saviour 
and  his  apostles  left  it  to  the  discretion  of  the  civil  magis- 
trate, in  those  places  in  which  Christianity  should  obtain, 
to  accommodate  the  government  of  the  church  to  the  polity 
of  the  state.  But  the  Puritans  contended  that  the  Holy 
Scriptures  ought  to  be  regarded  as  a  standard  of  govern- 
ment and  discipline  as  well  as  of  doctrine ;  at  least  that 
nothing  should  be  imposed  as  necessary  but  what  was  ex- 
pressly contained  in  them,  or  deduced  from  them  by  neces- 
sary consequence. 

In  the  second  place,  the  court  reformers  maintained,  that 
the  practice  of  the  church  for  the  first  four  centuries,  was 
a  proper  standard  of  church  government  and  discipline  ; 
and  in  some  respects  a  better  standard  than  that  of  the 
apostles,  which,  according  to  them,  was  only  accommo- 
dated to  the  infant  state  of  the  church,  while  it  was  under 
persecution ;  whereas  the  model  of  the  third,  and  especially 
the  fourth  century,  was  better  adapted,  as  they  thought, 
to  the  grandeur  of  a  national  establishment.  On  the  other 
hand,  the  Puritans  were  for  keeping  close  to  the  Scriptures 
in  all  the  main  principles  of  church  government,  and  for 


PRELIMINARY   LETTER.  xxi 

admitting  no  church  officers  or  ordinances  but  such  as  are 
evidently  found  in  scripture.  They  maintained  that  the 
form  of  government  ordained  by  the  apostles  was  accord- 
ing to  the  model  of  the  Jewish  Synagogue,  and  was  designed 
*as  a  pattern  for  the  church  in  after  ages,  not  to  be  departed 
from  in  any  of  its  main  principles.  And,  therefore,  they 
rejected  all  the  customs  of  the  Papacy,  and  the  practice  of 
the  first  three  or  four  centuries,  excepting  so  far  as  they 
corresponded  with  the  scriptures. 

In  the  third  place,  the  court  reformers  maintained, 
that  the  church  of  Rome  was  a  true  church,  though  corrupt 
as  to  some  points  of  doctrine  and  government;  that  all  her 
ministrations  were  valid  ;  and  that  the  Pope  was  a  true 
bishop  of  Rome,  though  not  of  the  universal  church.  They 
thought  it  necessary  to  maintain  this,  for  the  support  of  the 
authority  of  their  bishops ;  who  could  not  otherwise  make 
out  a  line  of  succession  from  the  apostles.  But  the  Puri- 
tans affirmed,  that  the  Pope  was  antichrist;  that  the  church 
of  Rome  was  not  a  true  church  ;  and  that  all  her  ministra- 
tions were  superstitious  and  idolatrous.  They,  therefore, 
renounced  her  communion,  and  utterly  declined  founding 
the  validity  of  their  ordinations  and  ordinances  upon  any 
such  uninterrupted  line,  through  them,  as  their  opponents 
considered  as  indispensable. 

Finally,  the  court  reformers  maintained,  that  things  in- 
different in  their  own  nature,  which  are  neither  commanded 
nor  forbidden  in  the  scriptures,  such  as  rites,  ceremonies, 
&c.,  might  be  settled,  determined,  and  made  necessary  by 
the  command  of  the  civil  magistrate  ;  and  that,  when  thus 
commanded,  it  was  the  indispensable  duty  of  all  good  sub- 
jects to  observe  them.  On  the  other  hand,  the  Puritans 
contended,  that  those  things  which  Christ  had  left  indif- 
ferent, ought  not  to  be  made  necessary  by  any  human 
laws  ;  but  that  it  is  the  privilege  of  Christians  to  stand  fast 
in  the  liberty  wherewith  Christ  has  made  us  free  ;  and,  fur- 
ther, that  such  rites  and  ceremonies  as  had  been  abused  to 
4 


xxii  PRELIMINARY  LETTER. 

idolatry,  and  manifestly  tended  to  lead  men  back  to  popery 
and  superstition,  were  no  longer  indifferent,  but  were  to 
be  rejected  as  unlawful.* 

No  discerning  mind  can  possibly  mistake  either  the 
scope  of  the  foregoing  principles,  or  the  plain  inferences* 
which  they  warrant.  It  is  manifest  that  the  court  reformers 
did  not  venture,  did  not  even  pretend,  to  make  their  pri- 
mary appeal  to  scripture,  in  support  of  the  form  of  church 
government,  which  they  ultimately  adopted  ;  nay,  that 
they  thought  the  state  of  the  church  in  the  fourth  century, 
when  supported  by  the  imperial  government,  a  more  suit- 
able model  for  a  church  established  by  law,  than  its  state  in 
the  apostolic  age,  and  as  exhibited  in  the  New  Tetament. 
In  other  words,  they  virtually  conceded,  that  the  plan  of 
church  government  which  they  thought  proper  to  adopt, 
was  not  founded  in  the  word  of  God,  but  in  human  pru- 
dence and  the  will  of  the  civil  magistrate.  Conscious  that 
they  were  governed  in  the  course  which  they  pursued  more 
by  the  dictation  of  the  Queen,  than  by  the  laws  of  Christ, 
they  openly  maintained  the  principle,  that  it  was  not 
necessary,  or  even  proper,  to  take  the  scriptures  as  their 
guide  in  the  government  of  the  church.  This  was,  evi- 
dently, placing  the  whole  matter  on  a  footing  which  would 
warrant  Presbyterianism  or  Independency,  just  as  well  as 
Prelacy,  if  either  should  happen  to  be  preferred  by  the 
monarch.  It  is  hoped  that,  none  who  have  the  least  re- 
spect for  the  memory  of  those  venerable  men,  who  adorn- 
ed the  early  history  of  the  Protestant  church  of  England, 
and  several  of  whom  laid  down  their  lives  in  maintaining 
what  they  deemed  the  truth,  will  ever  think  again  of  plead- 
ing their  authority  in  favour  of  principles  so  earnestly  con- 
tended for  by  modern  high  churchmen.  They  were  either 
dishonest,  time-serving  men,  or  they  were  strangers  to 
doctrines  so  entirely  at  war  with  their  whole  conduct. 

*  NEAI/S  History  of  the  Puritans,  Vol.  I.  p,  96,  97.  4to.  edition, 


PRELIMINARY  LETTER.  xxiii 

Those  who  are  acquainted  with  their  history,  will  not  hesi- 
tate a  moment  in  adopting  the  latter  alternative. 

IV.  But  further;  the  principles  and  conduct  of  the  lead- 
ing divines  of  the  Church  of  England,  WHO  IMMEDIATELY 

SUCCEEDED  THE   ORIGINAL  REFORMERS,   will  prove,  on  CX- 

amination,  equally  instructive  and  decisive.  A  particular 
discussion  of  this  point  will  be  found  in  more  than  one  of 
the  following  letters.  But  some  further  testimony  on  the 
same  subject  is  at  hand,  and  worthy  of  the  most  grave  con- 
sideration. 

When  such  divines  as  Bishop  Hall,  Archbishop  Usher, 
&c.,  men  of  colossal  weight  and  strength,  as  pillars,  in  their 
day,  of  the  church  to  which  they  belonged,  could  declare, 
as  the  latter  at  least  did,  that  he  could,  with  all  readiness 
and  affection,  receive  the  sacraments  from  the  hands  of 
Presbyterian  ministers;  and,  of  course,  considered  their 
ministrations  as  entirely  valid;  and  when  the  former  could 
consent  to  sit  for  several  months  as  a  member  of  the  Pres- 
byterian synod  of  Dort,  and  commune  with  that  body  in 
prayer,  preaching,  and  the"  holy  Eucharist;  it  is  perfectly 
impossible  that  they  should  have  maintained  the  opinion 
concerning  Prelacy,  which  it  is  the  object  of  this  volume  to 
oppose.  But  on  this  point  I  shall  not  dwell.  It  is  well 
known  that  in  the  day  of  the  great  and  good  men  whose 
names  have  been  just  mentioned,  their  monarch,  Charles 
I.,  was  involved  in  conflicts  with  the  parliament  which,  in 
a.  few  years  afterwards  terminated  in  his  decapitation.  In 
the  course  of  these  conflicts  the  king  was  urged  to  consent 
to  a  proposed  act  of  the  parliament  for  abolishing  Episco- 
pacy. This  he  utterly  refused,  alleging  among  other  things, 
that  Episcopacy  was  more  friendly  to  monarchy  than 
Presbytery  was,  and  pleading  "  conscience,"  against  a 
consent  to  the  proposed  measure.  Writing  on  this  subject 
to  his  devoted  Episcopal  friends  and  counsellors,  Lord 
Jermyn,  Lord  Culpepper,  and  Mr.  Jlshburnham,  he  ex- 
presses himself  thus :— 


xxiv  PRELIMINARY  LETTER. 

"  Show  me  any  precedent  wherever  presbyterial  govern- 
"  ment  and  regal  was  together,  without  perpetual  rebel- 
"  lions;  which  was  the  cause  that  necessitated  the  king, 
"  my  father,  to  change  that  government  in  Scotland.  And 
"  even  in  France,  where  they  are  but  upon  tolerance, 
"  (which  in  likelihood  should  cause  moderation)  did  they 
"  ever  sit  still  so  long  as  they  had  power  to  rebel  ?  And  it 
"  cannot  be  otherwise,  for  the  ground  of  their  doctrine  is 
"  anti-monarchical.  Indeed  to  prove  that  clearly,  would 
"  require  more  time,  and  a  better  pen  than  I  have.  I  will 
"  say,  without  hyperbole,  that  there  was  not  a  wiser  man 
"  since  Solomon,  than  he  who  said — no  bishop,  no  king." 
To  this  the  enlightened  and  cordial  friends  of  the  monarch, 
and  of  the  Church  of  England  just  named,  made  the  fol- 
lowing reply.  "  If  by  conscience  your  meaning  is,  that 
*'  you  are  obliged  to  do  all  that  is  in  your  power  to  support 
"  and  maintain  that  function  of  bishops,  as  that  which  is 
"  the  most  ancient,  reverend,  and  pious  government  of  the 
"  church — we  fully  and  heartily  concur  with  you  therein. 
"  But  if  by  conscience  is  intended  to  assert,  that  episcopacy 
"  is  jure  divino  exclusive,  whereby  no  Protestant  (or  ra- 
"  ther  Christian)  church,  can  be  acknowledged  for  such 
"  without  a  bishop,  we  must  therein  crave  leave  wholly  to 
"  differ.  And  if  we  be  in  error,  we  are  in  good  company  ; 
«  there  NOT  BEING  (as  we  have  cause  to  believe)  six  PER- 

"  SONS  OF  THE  PROTESTANT  RELIGION  OP  THE  OTHER  OPIN- 

<fc  ION.  Thus  much  we  can  add,  that,  at  the  treaty  of  Ux- 
"  bridge,  NONE  OF  YOUR  DIVINES  THEN  PRESENT,  (though 
"  much  provoked  thereunto)  WOULD  MAINTAIN  THAT  (we 
"  MIGHT  SAY  UNCHARITABLE)  OPINION  ;  no,  not  privately 
l(  among  your  commissioners." 

The  men  who  wrote  thus,  were  intelligent,  well  in- 
formed men,  true  sons  of  the  church,  and  intimately  con- 
versant with  the  leading  ecclesiastics  as  well  as  civilians, 

*  CLARENDON'S  State  Papers,  Vol.  n.  p  260.  274.202. 


PRELIMINARY   LETTER.  xxv 

in  the  kingdom.  And  yet  they  could  say,  with  confidence, 
that  they  did  not  believe  there  were  "  six  PERSONS  of  the 
protestant  religion"  who  entertained  the  exclusive  opinion 
which  they  reprobate. 

The  truth  is,  as  long  as  doctrinal  orthodoxy,  and  piety 
had  a  general  prevalence  in  the  Church  of  England,  which, 
it  is  well  known,  was  the  case  prior  to  the  administration 
of  Archbishop  Laud,  the  high-church  claims  which  I  am 
opposing,  had  very  few  advocates  among  the  truly  learned 
and  respectable  divines  of  that  church.  It  was  only  when 
evangelical  truth  and  spirituality  greatly  declined,  that 
claims  so  much  at  war  with  reason,  with  scripture,  and 
with  the  communion  of  saints,  began  to  be  popular.  And 
I  have  no  doubt  that  it  may  be  maintained,  as  a  gene- 
ral position,  that,  from  that  time  to  the  present,  the  doc- 
trine in  question  has  found  most  favour  with  the  worldly 
and  heterodox  part  of  the  English  establishment;  and  been 
most  disbelieved  and  opposed  by  the  truly  evangelical  and 
exemplary  portion  both  of  the  clergy  and  people. 

V.  Again  ;  the  advocates  of  the  high  church  and  exclu- 
sive doctrine  which  is  here  opposed,  will  appear,  when 
their  case  is  examined,  liable  to  the  charge  of  EXTREME 
PRESTTMPTTJOUSNESS.  When  we  see  a  very  small  sect,  in  a 
great  religious  community,  turning  away,  like  the  Pharisees 
of  old,  from  all  contact  with  the  rest  of  their  brethren  ; 
alleging  that  their  little  body  alone  is  in  the  right  way,  and 
that  all  the  rest  of  mankind  are  outcasts  and  reprobates  ; — 
we,  instinctively,  recoil  from  such  a  claim  as  arrogant  and 
presumptuous  in  a  high  degree  ;  and  demand  that  the  evi- 
dence in  its  support  be  uncommonly  clear  and  unquestion- 
able. It  is  very  possible,  indeed,  that  a  small  minority 
may  be  right,  nay,  the  only  body  in  the  world  that  is 
right.  This  was  actually  the  case  with  the  "  little  flock" 
which  the  Saviour  gathered  in  the  days  of  his  flesh,  and  who 
were  "  every  where  spoken  against."  But  then  that  «  little 
flock"  was  armed  with  a  power  and  an  evidence  which 


xxvi  PRELIMINARY   LETTER. 

ought   to  have  convinced  the  whole    world.     But  when 
every  thing  of  this  kind  is  wanting  :— when  without  evi- 
dence,  nay,  in  spite  of  the  strongest  evidence  to  the  con- 
trary, a  small  body,  with  the  narrowest  prejudices,  and  the 
mosi;  determined  exclusivendss,  sets  up  a  claim  which  not 
only  virtually,  but  formally  and  necessarily  places  all  the 
immense  majority  who  differ  from  it,  in  the  situation  of 
aliens  from  all  the  gracious  promises  of  heaven ; — every 
impartial  judge   will  pronounce  such  a  body  liable  to  a 
charge  of  presumptuousness  as  offensive  as  it  is  groundless. 
When  the  reformation  from  popery  took  place,  it  became 
a  question  with  all  the  reformed  churches,  throughout  Eu- 
rope,   what  form  of  government  they  would   adopt  ?  It 
would  have  been  just  as  easy  for  them  to  adopt  the  pre- 
latical  as  any  other  ;  nay  easier.  It  was  that  to  which  they 
had  been  all  accustomed  for  a  number  of  centuries.     And 
there  was  no  difficulty  in  the  way  of  their  prelates,  if  they 
had  chosen  to  have  them,  obtaining  a  regular  canonical  in- 
vestiture.     There  was  a  sufficient  number  of  bishops  who 
came  over  from  the  Romish  church  to  the  Protestant,  to  have 
peopled  the  whole  ecclesiastical  world  with  their  order,  if 
it  had  been  deemed  desirable.      What,    then,   was    the 
fact  ?    Why  that  all  the  reformers  on  the  continent  of  Eu- 
rope, without  one  solitary  exception,  declared  in  favour  of 
the  doctrine  of  ministerial  parity,  as  the  truly  primitive 
and  apostolic    doctrine ;    acknowledged    prelacy  to  be   a 
human  invention ;  universally  sanctioned  the  principle   of 
Presbyterian  ordination  ;  and  when  any  of  them  gave  to 
certain  ministers  a  kind  of  superintending  power,  uniform- 
ly declared,  that  they  did  not  consider  it  as  founded  at  all 
in   scripture,  but  as  a  mere  matter  of  human  prudence, 
adapted  to  the  secular  circumstances  in  which  particular 
communities  were  placed.     To  this  statement  in  reference 
to  the  reformers  on  the  continent  of  Europe,  I  cannot  recol- 
lect a  single  exception.     Now,  I  ask,  could  men  have  been 
possibly  placed  in  circumstances  more  favourable  to  an  in 


PRELIMINARY    LETTER.  xxvii 

lelligent  and  impartial  decision  of  this  question  ?  For,  in 
the  first  place,  they  were  learned  men  ;  a  number  of  them 
transcendently  so.     Then  the  great  body  of  them  were  fer- 
vently pious,  devoted  men,  who  gave  abundant  evidence 
that  they  searched  the  scriptures  diligently,  and  were  in- 
capable of  departing  from  their  conscientious  convictions 
of  truth  and  duty.  Men  who  evinced  so  much  of  the  spirit 
of  martyrs,  cannot  be  suspected  of  compromising  what  they 
honestly  believed  to  be  the  will  of  God  in  this  concern. 
Again,  they  were  placed  in  circumstances  which  left  them 
perfectly  unshackled  in  their  decision  of  this  matter.     The 
civil  rulers,   every  where,  so  far  as  I  have  been  able  to 
learn,  left  them  at  perfect  liberty  to  adopt  that  form  of  ec- 
clesiastical government  which  they  judged  to  be  most  for 
edification.     Yet,  in  these  circumstances,  they  all  — ALL — 
Lutherans  and  Reformed,  came  to  the  same  conclusion.  I 
repeat  it — these  learned,  godly,  devoted  men — whether  in 
Germany  or  France,  whether  in  Holland  or  Switzer- 
land, whether  in  Sweden  Denmark  or  Scotland, — with- 
out any  particular  concert,  and  while  they  differed  widely 
on  some  other  points — in  reference  to  this  came  to  the  same 
conclusion  ; — all  agreed  that  the  primitive,  apostolic  plan 
was  that  of  ministerial  parity  ;  that  Presbyterian  ordination 
was  not  only  just  as  valid  as  any  other,  but  most  con- 
formed to  the  scriptural  model ;  and   that  wherever  this 
model    was   in    any  degree  departed  from,  the  variation 
was,  ot  course,  to  be  referred  merely  to  human  prudence, 
which  a  majority  of  them  supposed  might  lawfully  be  ex- 
ercised in  modifying  and  arranging  matters  of  church  go- 
vernment.    Now  these  are,  verily,  most  marvellous  facts, 
if,  as  modern  high-churchmen  tell  us,  the  evidence  in   fa- 
vour of  prelacy,    from   scripture  and  early  antiquity,    is 
clear,  undoubted,  and  such  as  all  honest,  impartial  inqui- 
rers cannot  but  see  and  acknowledge.     Were  all  the  great 
and  good  men  who  conducted  the  reformation  on  the  Eu- 
ropean continent  so  smitten  with  blindness,  or  so  perverted 
by  prejudice,  as  not  to  be  able  to  perceive  that  which  some 


xxviii  PRELIMINARY  LETTER. 

would  persuade  us  is  as  clear  to  every  sober  inquirer  as  the 
light  of  day  ;  or,  seeing  it,  were  they  so  unprincipled 
as  to  set  conscience  and  divine  authority  all  at  defiance  ? 
While  this  universal  and  most  wonderful  concurrence 
of  opinion  in  favour  of  ministerial  parity,  as  taught  in 
scripture,  pervaded  the  reformed  churches  on  the  continent 
of  Europe,  without  a  single  exception,  and  also  in  North 
Britain;  England  stood  ALONE  in  adopting  a  different 
plan  of  ecclesiastical  government ;  and  the  reasons  of  her 
adopting  this  plan  are  too  manifest  to  be  mistaken  by  the 
most  superficial  inquirer.  In  that  country  the  movements 
in  favour  of  the  reformation  were  begun  by  the  monarch; 
not,  as  all  the  world  knows,  from  any  love  to  truth  or 
piety,  but  under  the  impulse  of  his  pride  and  voluptuous- 
ness. Having,  from  these  unworthy  motives,  broken  off 
from  the  papal  see,  and  made  himself  pope  in  his  own 
dominions,  instead  of  the  Roman  Pontiff,  he  ordered  every 
thing,  in  the  church  as  well  as  the  state,  with  despotic 
sway,  and  received  no  more  of  the  principles  of  the  enlight- 
ened and  holy  men  on  the  continent  than  suited  his  own 
blind  and  unworthy  policy.  When  Henry  VIII.  died, 
which  was  not  until  the  year  after  Luther  had  finished  his 
work  in  Germany,  and  gone  to  his  blessed  reward  ;  Eng- 
land might  still  be  said  to  be  a  popish  country ;  Protestant, 
indeed,  in  name  ;  but  really  and  effectually  disburdened  of 
no  important  part  of  that  mass  of  superstition  in  doctrine 
and  order  which  had  so  long  depressed  and  corrupted 
Christendom.  Some  progress  in  the  hallowed  work  of 
reformation  was  made  in  the  next  reign  ;  but  by  reason  of 
the  minority  and  feebleness  of  the  amiable  king,  every 
thing  was  in  the  hands  of  the  bishops  and  nobles,  who 
would  naturally  be  disposed  to  retain  that  form  of  ecclesi- 
astical government  to  which  they  had  been  accustomed,  and 
especially  which  they  were  tempted  to  prefer  as  involving 
the  continuance  of  their  own  honours.  The  reformation 
could  not  really  be  said  to  be  established  in  England  until 


PRELIMINARY  LETTER.  xxix 

Elizabeth,  who  began  to  reign  in  1558,  had  been  some 
time  on  the  throne.  This  Queen,  haughty,  despotic,  super- 
stitious, and  passionately  fond  of  show  and  parade  in  eccle- 
siastical as  well  as  civil  affairs,  was  so  far  from  being  dis- 
posed to  carry  the  reformation  further  than  it  had  been 
carried  in  the  reign  of  her  brother  Edward,  that  almost 
every  movement  was  rather  the  other  way.  The  bishops 
and  court  clergy  were  naturally  inclined,  as  might  have 
been  expected  to  retain  prelacy,  in  other  words,  their  own 
pre-eminence  :  but  even  if  they  had  been  otherwise  mind- 
ed, the  Queen  would  have  controlled  their  inclination  ;  as 
she  manifested  a  strong  desire  for  a  splendid  hierarchy,  and 
restored  several  of  the  superstitions  of  popery  which  had 
been  set  aside  in  the  reign  of  Edward.  Can  any  one  be 
surprised  that  in  these  circumstances,  prelacy  was  retained 
in  the  Church  of  England?  To  suppose  that  a  set  of  pre- 
lates would  be  likely,  of  their  own  accord,  to  prefer  a  plan 
destructive  of  their  own  powers  and  emoluments,  is,  of  all 
suppositions,  one  of  the  most  improbable.  But  they  could 
not  have  carried  into  execution  such  a  plan,  even  if  they 
had  been  disposed.  And  yet  high-churchmen  gravely  tell 
us,  that  the  circumstance  of  the  reformation  in  England, 
from  its  rise  to  its  consummation,  being  in  the  hands  of  the 
bishops,  affords  the  strongest  presumptive  proof  of  its  being 
conducted  on  sounder  principles  than  on  the  continent, 
where  none  of  the  leading  reformers  were  prelates.  This 
is,  surely,  one  of  the  most  extraordinary  positions  ever 
attempted  to  be  maintained  !  The  presumption  is,  mani- 
festly, all  the  other  way.  The  principal  reformers  on  the 
continent,  were  more  deeply  learned  than  those  in  Eng- 
land. That  they  were  at  hast  as  pious,  and  as  heroically 
firm  in  acting  agreeably  to  their  conscientious  convictions, 
no  impartial  judge  will  hesitate  to  admit.  The  fathers  of 
reform  on  the  continent,  in  rejecting  episcopacy,  resisted 
the  strongest  temptations  of  worldly  ambition,  for  they 
might  have  had  it  if  they  pleased ;  and  if  they  had  chosen 
5 


xxx  PRELIMINARY  LETTER. 

to  restore  it,  can  any  one  of  them  have  doubted,  or  can 
any  thinking  mind  now  doubt,  that  all  eyes  would  have 
been  turned  to  themselves  as  candidates  for  the  prelacy  ? 
whereas  the  fathers  of  the  Protestant  Church  of  England, 
in  retaining  the  prelatical  feature  of  their  government, 
yielded  to  the  plainest  dictates  of  selfishness.  The  course 
they  took  was  in  support  of  their  own  authority  and  ho- 
nours. The  continental  reformers  were  at  full  liberty  to 
follow  their  own  judgment  in  this  matter.  But  those  of 
England,  at  every  step,  were  restrained,  if  not  coerced,  by 
the  hand  of  despotic  power  in  the  state.  And,  finally,  we 
have  conclusive  evidence,  as  I  have  shown  elsewhere,  that 
even  the  English  reformers,  while  they  thought  best  to 
establish  prelacy  in  the  church  over  which  they  presided, 
by  no  means  considered  it  as  resting  on  the  footing  of  di- 
vine right,  but  regarded  it  as  a  matter  of  human  expediency 
alone.  Nowr,  when  the  facts  were  notoriously  as  has  been 
stated  ;  when  England,  among  all  the  protestant  churches 
stood  absolutely  alone  in  retaining  the  prelatical  system ; 
and  when  even  she  regarded  it,  in  the  beginning,  not  as  an 
apostolic  institution,  but  as  an  ancient,  venerable,  and  con- 
venient human  one,  and  cheerfully  acknowledged  as  breth- 
ren those  who  rejected  it ;  the  high-church  doctrine  now 
so  confidently  maintained  by  some,  having  never  been 
thought  of  by  one  of  their  number  ;  I  say,  when  these  are 
are  unquestionable  facts,  on  which  side  does  the  presump- 
tion lie  ?  Surely  if  human  authority  is  of  any  value  in  this 
matter:  if  the  talents,  learning  and  piety  of  those  who 
were  instrumental  in  founding  the  several  reformed  church- 
es, are  to  have  any  weight  in  our  present  inquiry,  the 
presumption  is  extreme  in  favour  of  the  side  of  ministerial 
parity;  and  those  who  conclude  that  this  side  must  be 
wrong,  when  only  a  single  nation  adopted  the  opposite:  and 
even  that  nation  disclaimed  adopting  it  on  the  principle 
of  divine  right — must  be  considered  as  chargeable  with  a 
presumptuousness  which  it  is  difficult  to  estimate. 


PRELIMINARY  LETTER.  xxxi 

VI.  The  high-church  doctrine  is,  further,  in  the  opinion 
of  some  of  the  wisest  and  best  men  in  our  land,  as  IRRA- 
TIONAL as  it  is,  presumptuous.  That  is,  it  so  palpably  con- 
tradicts some  of  the  most  obvious  dictates  of  reason,  and 
some  of  the  most  settled  principles  of  our  common  Chris- 
tianity, that  we  run  no  risk  in  saying,  on  this  ground  alone, 
it  cannot  possibly  be  true. 

The  man  who  can  really  believe  that  there  is  some  won- 
derful influence  flowing  from  the  hands  of  a  diocesan 
bishop,  which  can  be  imparted  by  those  of  no  other  eccle- 
siastic ;  that  those  who  are  fully  authorized  to  preach  the 
gospel^  and  administer  the  sacraments  appointed  by  Christ, 
have  yet  no  power  to  admit  others  to  equal  authority 
with  themselves  ;  that  there  is  a  mystical  and  indelible 
character  impressed  by  a  prelate's  touch  ;  that  the  validity 
of  all  official  ministrations  in  the  church  of  God  depends  on 
an  "  uninterrupted  succession"  of  canonical  ordinations, 
following  in  a  regular  line  from  the  apostles  to  the  present 
day  ;  and  that  of  course,  the  validity  of  all  gospel  ordinan- 
ces, and  the  \varrant  of  all  hopes  in  the  covenanted  mercy 
of  God,  are  suspended  on  a  point  of  ecclesiastical  genealogy, 
which  no  man  living  can  ascertain,  and  which  not  one  pro- 
fessing Christian  in  ten  thousand  is  competent  to  examine; 
I  say,  the  man  who  can  really  believe  all  this,  and,  conse- 
quently, rest  every  Christian's  comfort  and  peace, — not 
where  the  Bible  has  placed  them, — but  on  the  disputable 
and  varying  formalities  of  fallible  men ;  such  a  man,  it 
appears  to  me,  is  prepared  to  swallow  any  absurdity.  He  has 
put  his  understanding  under  lock  and  key.  To  say,  that 
he  departs  from  the  whole  tenor  of  Christian  character 
and  confidence,  as  laid  down  in  the  Bible,  is  to  express  but 
part  of  the  truth.  He  turns  his  back  on  reason,  as  manifest- 
ly as  he  does  on  the  spirit  of  holy  scripture.  He  is  in  a 
fit  state  of  mind  to  receive  and  digest  any  notion,  however 
preposterous,  that  superstition  or  sinister  design  may  pro- 
pose to  his  acceptance. 


PRELIMINARY  LETTER. 

VII.  The  high-church  doctrine  which  it  is  the  design  of 
the  following  pa"ges  to  oppose,  cannot  fail  of  being  discre- 
dited, in  the  view  of  all  serious  and  impartial  inquirers,  by 
the  UNHALLOWED  CONNECTIONS  ;  in  which  it  is  commonly 
found.  By  this  is  meant,  that  the  greater  part  of  those 
who  hold  this  exclusive  and  unscriptural  doctrine,  are 
found  to  associate  with  it,  as  parts  of  the  same  system,  a 
variety  of  principles  of  the  most  delusive  and  mischievous 
kind.  It  is  not  asserted,  that  the  principles  to  which  I 
allude  are  always  found  in  connection  with  the  doctrine 
under  consideration  ;  but  that  this  is  generally  the  case, 
and  that  there  is,  beyond  all  question,  a  natural  alliance 
between  them. 

The  principles  referred  to  are  such  as  these : — that  bap- 
tism is  regeneration  : — that  the  ordinances  of  the  gospel, 
when  administered  by  the  proper  hands,  have  a  kind  of 
opus  operatum,)  as  it  has  been  technically  called,  or  neces- 
sary and  immediate  influence,  depending  upon  the  admin- 
istrator being  in  the  regular  succession  from  the  apostles  : — 
that  the  church,  as  such,  is  the  only  authorized  interpreter 
of  the  Bible  : — that  there  can  be  no  acceptable  or  valid  in- 
tercourse between  heaven  and  earth,  but  through  the  me- 
dium of  a  canonical  priesthood  : — that  the  sacraments  are 
necessary  to  salvation  : — and  that  the  external  exhibition 
of  them  is  a  guaranty  of  saving  grace  to  all  who  receive 
them.     Such  doctrines  as  these  are  naturally,  I  had  almost 
said  necessarily,  connected  with  the  high-toned  notions  of 
prelacy,  which  some  modern  Episcopalians  entertain.  For 
if  ecclesiastics  of  a  particular  description  are  the  only  au- 
thorized negotiators  between  God  and  man  ;  and  if  none, 
however  devout  and  exemplary,  can  have  any  access  to  the 
mercy  seat,  but  through  their  official  agency  ;  and   if  all 
who  enjoy   this   agency  with  outward  regularity,  are  of 
course  safe  ; — then  I  scruple  not  to  aver  that  all  the  princi- 
ples which  1  have  mentioned  follow  of  course.     No  won- 
der, therefore,  that  they  are  commonly  found,  in  a  greater 


PRELIMINARY  LETTER.  xxxiii 

or  less  degree,  in  union  with  the  offensive  claim  in  ques- 
tion. These  principles,  however,  ought,  with  all  sober 
minds,  utterly  to  discredit  the  doctrine  from  which  they 
naturally  flow.  Corruption  and  delusion  are  stamped  upon 
them  with  a  distinctness  not  to  be  mistaken.  They  are 
grossly  superstitious.  They  tend  to  put  rites  and  forms, 
in  place  of  the  Saviour  as  the  ground  of  hope.  They  are, 
of  course,  adapted  to  deceive  and  destroy.  Their  reception 
is  a  revival  of  the  claims  of  "  the  man  of  sin,  the  son  of 
perdition,"  who  professes  to  be  the  only  authorized  vicar 
of  Christ  upon  earth.  Their  tendency,  so  far  as  they  pre- 
vail, is  to  bring  back  the  darkness  and  the  thraldom  of  those 
ages,  when  haughty  ecclesiastics  undertook  to  be  sovereign 
dispensers  of  the  grace  of  God,  and  to  make  men  believe, 
that  they  held  in  their  thands  all  the  spiritual  privileges, 
and  all  the  eternal  hopes  of  their  fellow  men  ! 

Can  there  be  any  thing  presumptuous,  my  Christian 
brethren,  in  deciding  that  a  claim  which  bears  such  rela- 
tions, and  leads  to  such  unhallowed  results,  cannot  be  a 
scriptural  one  ?  No  ;  if  our  Saviour's  test  be  safe  and  in- 
fallible ;  if  we  are  to  know  principles  as  well  as  men  "by 
their  fruits  ;"  then  we  may  confidently  pronounce,  that 
the  claim  in  questson  is  destitute  of  all  divine  warrant,  and 
of  every  character  which  ought  to  recommend  it  to  sober 
minded  Christians,  who  wish  to  be  able  to  "  give  a  reason" 
for  that  which  they  believe. 

VIII.  The  claim  under  consideration,  will  further  appear 
altogether  inadmissible,  if  we  consider  its  manifest  and  of- 
fensive UNCHARITABLENESS.  It  not  only  virtually,  but 
formally  and  avowedly  shuts  out  from  the  visible  church, 
and  from  all  the  "  covenanted  mercies  of  God,"  the  whole 
protestant  world,  excepting  the  members  of  the  Episcopal 
church.  I  know,  indeed,  that  a  very  different  impression 
is  often  attempted  to  be  made  by  the  ardent  advocates  of 
this  claim.  They  have  sometimes  represented  as  if  they 
were  pleading  the  cause  of  almost  every  church  on  earth. 


xxxiv  PRELIMINARY  LETTER. 

But  nothing  can  be  more  delusive,  or  more  entirely  at  war 
with  notorious  facts.  The  truth  is,  when  we  come  to  scru- 
tinize with  care  the  real  operation  of  this  claim,  it  is  to  ex- 
clude from  the  visible  church  of  Christ,  and  from  all  the 
promises  of  divine  mercy, — the  whole  Lutheran  denomi- 
nation, in  every  part  of  the  world  ; — all  the  reformed 
churches  in  Germany,  France,  Holland,  Switzerland, 
and  Scotland,  without  exception  ; — perhaps  nearly  one 
half  the  population  of  England  itself;  and  probably  nine- 
teen twentieths  of  the  whole  population  of  the  United 
States;  including  not  only  all  classes  of  Presbyterians, 
but  also  the  Congregational,  Methodist,  and  Baptist 
churches,  with  many  other  less  numerous  portions  of  pro- 
fessing protestant  Christians,  in  every  part  of  the  European 
and  American  world  : — all  these  when  traced  to  their 
original  organization,  and  their  subsequent  practice,  have 
no  other  than  Presbyterian  ordination ;  and  of  course,  all 
of  them  the  high-toned  prelatists  unequivocally  denounce  ; 
not  merely  as  defective  in  their  views  and  organization ; 
not  merely  as  labouring  under  serious  error  of  doctrine  or 
order;  (such  a  charge  might  be  consistent  with  the  purest 
charity:)  but  as  absolutely  ALIENS  FROM  THE  CHURCH  OF  GOD 
and  from  all  his  covenanted  mercies  ; — nay,  as  was  before 
remarked,  in  a  situation  worse  than  the  heathen,  inasmuch 
as  the  heathen,  having  no  light ,  cannot  be  said  to  have  re- 
sisted it ;  but  non-Episcopalians,  in  a  Christian  land  are 
more  guilty,  enjojing  the  means  of  information,  and,  of 
course,  being  altogether  without  excuse.  Such  then,  is  the 
real  state  of  this  wonderful  case.  We  have  a  comparative- 
ly small  body  of  professing  Christians  ;  not,  certainly,  a 
tenth  part  of  the  population  of  protestant  Christendom, 
undertaking  to  exclude  from  all  the  warranted  hopes  of  the 

gOSpel,  ALL  THE  REST  OF  THEIR  FELLOW  PROTESTANTS  J 

declaring  them  out  of  covenant  with  Christ ;  and,  however 
eminent  their  piety,  or  fervent  their  zeal,  or  abundant  their 
services  in  the  cause  of  the  Redeemer,  yet,  notwithstanding 


PRELIMINARY  LETTER.  xxxV 

all,  aliens  from  his  family,  and  having  no  divine  promises 
of  which  they  have  a  right  to  lay  hold.  In  short,  we  have 
here  the  extraordinary  spectacle  of  a  body  of  professing 
Christians,  virtually  avowing,  that  no  piety,  however 
elevated,  no  obedience,  however  pure,  without  communion 
with  prelates,  can  avail  any  thing  in  reference  to  Christian 
character : — that  they  are  all  nothing — literally  nothing, 
so  far  as  a  gracious  relation  to  God,  and  hopes  in  his  pre- 
cious promises  are  concerned,  unless  connected  with  a 
point  of  external  order,  of  which  the  Bible  does  not  give 
the  smallest  intimation,  and  a  reliance  on  which  is  contrary 
to  the  whole  genius  of  the  gospel ! 

It  may  be  safely  affirmed,  that  there  is  no  parallel  to 
this  in  the  whole  religious  world,  EXCEPTING  IN  THE 
PAPACY.  It  is  true,  there  are  portions  of  the  protestant 
church,  both  in  and  out  of  our  own  country,  which  are 
each  in  the  habit  of  laying  -much  stress  on  their  respective 
peculiarities,  representing  them  as  highly  important,  and 
holding  them  fast  with  great,  and  sometimes,  no  doubt, 
with  excessive  tenacity.  But  they  all,  with  one  accord, 
grant  that  there  may  be  genuine,  acceptable  piety,  out  of 
their  own  pale;  and  they  all,  with  equal  unanimity,  ac- 
knowledge, that  wherever  sincere  faith,  in  Christ,  cordial 
repentance,  and  holines^of  life  exist,  the  happy  subjects 
of  them  will  be  accepted  of  God,  and  made  for  ever  happy 
with  him,  just  as  certainly  as  if  they  belonged  to  their  own 
denomination : — nay,  that  this  will  assuredly  be  the  case, 
even  when  these  truly  pious  individuals  Were  never  con- 
nected with  any  visible  church  in  their  lives.  To  this 
statement  I  know  only  of  one  exception  in  the  whole 
protestant  world,  and  that  is  formed  by  the  exclusive  pre 
latisls  of  whom  1  am  speaking.  This  comparatively  small 
body  feel  no  hesitation  in  consigning  to  "  uncovenanted 
mercy"  nine-tenths  of  all  protestant  Christendom  ;  stig- 
matizing them  as  schismatics,  rebels,  presumptuous  usurp- 
ers of  that  to  which  they  have  no  right ;  aliens  from  the 


xxxvi  PRELIMINARY  LETTER. 

commonwealth  of  Israel,  and  strangers  to  the  covenant  of 
promise."  But  can  there  be  the  least  countenance  found  in 
the  Bible  for  this  uncharitable  proscription  ?  Can  it  be  that 
all  the  blessed  reformers  on  the  continent  of  Europe,  who 
laboured  and  suffered  more  for  the  cause  of  truth  and 
piety  than  any  others  in  their  day  ;  and  all  the  precious 
ministers  and  private  Christians  who  have  flourished  from 
that  day  to  the  present,  in  the  churches  founded  by  them  ; 
ALL  deserved  to  be  considered  in  this  light ; — ALL  to  be 
regarded  as  aliens  from  that  Saviour  to  whom  they  conse- 
crated all  they  had,  and  in  whose  service  they  lived  and 
died  indefatigably  labouring  ?  No,  it  cannot  be.  It  is  a 
sentence  as  unreasonable  as  it  is  dreadful.  No  such  sen- 
tence was  ever  thought  of  by  the  Cranmers,  the  Hoopers, 
the  Ridleys,  the  Jewels,  and  the  Grindals  of  former 
times  ;  nor  can  it  be  now  pronounced  without  an  offence, 
as  odious  as  it  is  criminal,  "  against  the  generation  of  the 
righteous." 

IX.  The  doctrine  of  the  exclusive  prelatists  is,  beyond 

all  doubt,   UNFRIENDLY  TO  CIVIL  AND  RELIGIOUS   LIBERTY. 

There  is,  probably,  no  principle  more  familiar  to  the  in- 
telligent Christian  who  has  formed  his  sentiments  from  the 
Bible,  than  that  the  genuine  religion  of  Jesus  Christ  has 
ever  been,  and  ever  must  be,  essentially  favourable  to  all 
our  choicest  rights,  as  men  and  as  Christians.  It  represents 
all  men  as  standing,  by  nature,  on  a  level  before  God, 
having  equal  privileges  and  equal  responsibilities.  It  for- 
bids men  to  put  their  consciences  or  their  hopes  in  the 
keeping  of  others,  but  imposes  upon  every  man  the  duty  of 
inquiring,  judging,  believing,  and  obeying  for  himself.  It 
secures  to  every  one  the  right  of  private  judgment,  and 
represents  the  exercise  of  this  right  as  essential  to  the  pro- 
per intercourse  between  God  and  the  soul.  It  teaches  the 
Christian,  that  the  opinions  of  his  fellow-men  are  no  law 
to  him ;  but  that  "  to  his  own  Master  he  standeth  or  fall- 
eth."  In  short,  it  turns  away  the  minds  of  men  from  the 


PRELIMINARY  LETTER.  xxxvii 

dictation,  and  unwarranted  claims  of  both  civil  and  eccle- 
siastical oppressors ;  and  calls  upon  them  to  acknowledge 
the  sovereignty  of  truth  alone,  and  to  regard  the  Bible  as 
the  only  statute  book  of  Christ's  kingdom, — the  only  infal- 
lible rule  of  faith  and  practice. 

Now,  to  all  these  principles,  it  is  manifest  that  the  spirit 
of  the  exclusive  prelatists  is  decidedly  unfriendly.  I  am 
far  from  affirming,  indeed,  that  a  man  may  not  cordially 
prefer  the  Episcopal  form  of  church  government,  and  yet 
receive  and  love  all  these  principles.  Many  may,  and 
doubtless  do,  possess  this  decided  preference,  who  are  yet 
warm  friends  of  both  civil  and  religious  liberty.  I  do  not  even 
affirm  that  every  high  churchman  is,  in  reality,  unfriendly 
to  religious  freedom  ;  and  far  less,  that  he  avows  to  himself 
this  unfriendliness.  But  my  position  is,  that  the  doctrine 
of  the  exclusive  and  thorough-going  prelatists,  when 
traced  to  its  legitimate,  and,  indeed,  unavoidable  conse- 
quences, 'naturally  leads  the  minds  of  men,  in  proportion 
to  the  degree  in  which  it  is  received,  to  all  those  impres- 
sions and  habits  which  are  connected  with  mental  servitude. 
This  doctrine  introduces  human  mediators  as  essential  to 
intercourse  between  Christ  and  the  soul.  It  attaches  indis- 
pensable importance  to  the  agency  and  authority  of  te  privi- 
leged .orders"  in  the  church.  It  represents  a  mere  man  as 
a  vicar  of  Christ,  as  a  keeper  of  the  human  conscience,  and 
as  the  only  channel  of  grace.  According  to  this  doctrine, 
there  is  no  access  to  God,  but  through  a  certain  "  order  of 
priesthood  ;"  this  order  hold  in  their  hands  all  the  means 
of  approach  to  heaven  ;  and  their's  is  the  prerogative  to 
impart  or  withhold  the  "  covenanted  mercies"  of  God. 
When  such  a  doctrine  is  once  admitted,  there  are  no  bounds 
to  the  power  which  it  involves,  or  the  unhallowed  domi- 
nion over  the  conscience  to  which  it  naturally  leads.  It 
is  the  fundamental  principle  on  which  the  whole  super- 
structure of  Papal  tyranny  has  always  rested.  Hence  the 
claim  of  that  corrupt  body  to  be  the  only  authorized  inter- 
6 


xxxviii  PRELIMINARY  LETTER 

preter  of  the  Scripture  ;  to  prohibit  its  perusal ;  to  dispense 
pardons  and  immunities  at  pleasure  ;  to  add  to  the  rites 
and  ceremonies  enioined  in  Scripture;  and  enforce  their 
observance  to  any  extent  which  she  may  think  proper.  In 
a  word,  to  this  doctrine,  traced  out,  I  will  not  say,  to  its 
legitimate,  but  certainly  to  its  natural  consequences,  we 
may  refer  the  haughty  triumph  in  past  ages,  of  the  eccle- 
siastical over  the  civil  power; — the  bulls  and  interdicts 
which  have  carried  not  only  terror,  but  the  most  formidable 
privations  to  rulers,  and  even  kingdoms ;  and  all  that  array 
of  ghostly  penalties  and  coercions,  of  which  the  history  of 
the  world  gives  so  many  mournful  examples.  The  truth 
is,  the  moment  we  quit  the  gospel  plan  of  approaching 
God,  and  obtaining  acceptance  with  him ;  the  moment  we 
assign  to  the  agency  of  man  in  intercourse  with  heaven, 
that  paramount  and  indispensable  character  which  the  Bible 
no  where  warrants  ;  that  moment  we  encroach  on  the 
great  principles  of  religious  liberty  ;  we  commence  an 
invasion  of  Jehovah's  prerogative,  of  which  no  one  can  esti- 
mate the  mischief,  or  see  the  end. 

But  it  will,  perhaps,  be  asked,  do  no  other  classes  of  pro- 
fessing Christians,  besides  exclusive  prelatists,  contend  for 
the  importance  of  the  Christian  ministry,  and  represent  its 
agency  as  necessary  to  the  regular  course  of  ecclesiastical 
administration  ?  Certainly  they  do.  It  will  be  seen  in  the 
following  pages,  that  Presbyterians,  and  most  other  non- 
episcopal  denominations  maintain  decisively  that  the  gospel 
ministry  is  an  ordinance  of  God  ;  that  its  functions  ought 
not  to  be  usurped  by  those  who  have  not  been  regularly 
called  to  them  ;  and  that  it  is  the  ordinary  means  of  impart- 
ing saving  knowledge  to  the  minds  of  men,  and  building 
them  up  in  faith  and  holiness  unto  salvation.  As  such,  they 
bless  God  for  the  ministerial  office;  they  highly  value  it; 
and  consider  it  as  the  duty  of  all  men  to  avail  themselves 
of  its  faithful  services,  as  they  may  have  opportunity.  But 
further  they  do  not  go.  Precious  as  the  Christian  ministry 


PRELIMINARY    LETTER.  xxxix 

is  in  their  view,  and  inestimable  as  are  the  offices  which  it 
dispenses,  they  do  not  consider  either  as  necessary  to  sal- 
vation.    They    credit  the  divine  declaration   which  pro- 
claims, "  Believe  in  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  and  thou  shalt 
"  be  saved.     He  that   believeth  on  the   son   of  God  hath 
"  everlasting  life,  and  shall  not  come  into  condemnation, 
"  but  is  passed  from  death  unto  life."     And,  accordingly, 
they  are  persuaded  and  teach,  that  wherever  there  is  one 
who  has  genuine  faith  in  the  Redeemer,  and,  consequently, 
a  vital  union  of  spirit  with  him,   such  an  individual  is  as 
completely  in  a  state  of  acceptance  with  God,  though  he 
should  never  see  a  church  officer  in  his  life,  and  as  sure  of 
covenanted  mercy,  as  if  he  enjoyed  the  most  unquestiona- 
ble ordinances,  dispensed  by  the  most  regular  minister  on 
earth.     Now  those  who  adopt  this  great  gospel  principle, 
and  act  upon  it,  cannot  be  subjected  to  the  reign  of  spiritual 
domination.     They  own  no  master  but  Christ ;  no  media- 
tor but  Him  who  "  came  to  seek  and  to  save  that  which  was 
lost;"  no  infallible  statute  book   but  the  Bible;  no  real 
dispenser  of  grace  but  that  "  holy  Spirit  of  promise"  who 
alone  can  give  efficacy  to  means  by  whomsoever  adminis- 
tered,  and  who  can   find  his  way   to  the   heart  without 
means.     The   Presbyterian,   and   those    who  think   with 
him,  take  no  view  of  the  ministerial  character  which  ne- 
cessarily gives  it  any  official  power  over  the   consciences 
or  the  hopes  of  men.     No  certificate  or  intercession  of  a 
"  priest"  is   needed  to  obtain   access  to   the  mercy   seat. 
There  is  a  wide,  I  had  almost  said,  an  infinite  difference 
between  all  this,  and    maintaining   that  the  agency  of  an 
"  authorized  priest"  is  necessary  to  salvation  ;  and  that,  as 
he  may,  at  any  time,  withhold  this  agency  at  his  pleasure, 
so  an  obnoxious  individual  from  whom  he  chooses  to  with- 
hold it,  may  be  unavoidably  lost,  however  pure  and  ele- 
vated his  personal  piety  ;  nay,  that  a  nation  may  incur  this 
dreadful  penalty  in  the  gross,  if  unfortunately   laid  under 
the  bar  of  an  ecclesiastical  interdict,  such  as  spiritual  tyranny 


xl  PRELIMINARY  LETTER. 

has  often  imposed.  In  short,  upon  the  high  church 
principle,  carried  out  to  its  legitimate  consequences,  "  the 
need  of  the  priest  as  an  intercessor  is  incessant,  and  depend- 
ence upon  him  absolute  and  extreme." 

X.  The  exclusive  claims  of  prelacy  are  further  refuted 
by  the  VOICE  or  HISTORY.  That  is,  the  practical  influ- 
ence of  this  system,  as  recorded  in  the  annals  of  the  church, 
has  never  justified  or  sustained  the  pre-eminence  to  which 
it  lays  claim. 

It  is  always  an  arduous  task,  and  to  delicate  and  benevo- 
lent minds,  a  painful  one,  to  compare  with  each  other  dif- 
ferent denominations  of  Christians,  and  to  attempt  to 
award  the  comparative  claims  of  each  to  purity  and  spirit- 
uality. It  is  a  task  in  which  sectarian  feeling  is  so  apt  to 
interpose,  and  sectarian  prejudice  to  blind  the  judgment, 
that  few  minds,  animated  by  a  proper  spirit,  will  engage 
in  it,  unless  compelled;  yet  it  is  sometimes  necessary  ;  and 
the  case  before  us  seems  to  be  one  in  which  it  becomes 
unavoidable. 

If  a  confident  and  arrogant  individual,  in  setting  forth 
his  claims  to  the  Christian  character,  should  allow  himself 
to  say  :  "  I  only  am  in  covenant  with  God.  I  only,  of  all 
u  my  fellow  professors,  maintain  a  life  of  real  communion 
"  with  him.  All  around  me  are  aliens  and  reprobates.  I 
"'  alone  walk  in  the  light,  and  in  the  favour  of  heaven  :" 
would  not  every  discerning  neighbour  be  disposed,  and 
with  the  utmost  reason,  to  say  to  him  :  "  Where  are  your 
"  testimonals?  Bring  forth  fruits  corresponding  with  this 
(t  high  claim.  If  you  would  make  it  good,  we  shall  ex- 
"  pect  you  to  be  more  devoted,  more  spiritual,  and  more 
"  exemplary  in  every  branch  of  Christian  obedience,  than 
"  any  around  you.  Where,  then,  is  your  evidence  of  the 
cf  pre-eminent  character  which  you  arrogate  to  yourself?" 
Would  such  a  demand  be  deemed  either  uncandid  or  un- 
reasonable ?  By  no  means.  It  is  a  dictate  of  common 
sense.  It  is  the  very  test  which  the  Saviour  himself  pre- 


PRELIMINARY  LETTER.  xli 

scribes.  "  Wherefore  by  their  fruits  ye  shall  know  them." 
And  it  is  very  certain  that,  in  all  rational  society,  such  a 
claimant,  unless  he  could  sustain  himself  by  appealing  to 
a  temper  and  conversation  in  some  measure  becoming  his 
assumption,  could  not  fail  of  incurring  universal  contempt. 
It  may  be  truly  said,  that  this  is  a  simple,  unexaggerated 
picture  of  the  case  before  us.  It  cannot  be  alleged,  indeed, 
that  ALL  Episcopalians  prefer  a  claim  of  the  character  sup- 
posed. Many  of  them,  I  hope  a  large  majority,  though 
decided  in  their  preference  of  Prelacy,  are  as  inoffensive  in 
their  claims,  as  Presbyterians,  or  any  other  denomination 
of  Christians.  But  the  assumption  of  the  high-church  Pre- 
latists  is  precisely  analogous  to  that  of  the  individual  ima- 
gined ;  and,  therefore,  there  can  be  nothing  unjust  in  mak- 
ing the  demand  which  I  have  stated.  They  tell  us,  that 
theirs  is  the  only  true  church  ;  that  Episcopalians  alone 
are  in  covenant  with  God  ;  that  they  alone  have  an  author- 
ized ministry,  and  valid  ordinances  ;  that  all  others  are 
schismatics,  rebels  and  outcasts,  having  no  share  in  the 
promises  of  divine  mercy.  Now,  surely,  there  ought  to  be 
more  piety,  more  holy  living  among  the  peculiar  people  of 
God,  than  among  rebels  and  reprobates.  Surely,  it  is  not 
unreasonable  to  demand,  that  those  who  are  in  covenant 
with  Christ,  and  enjoy  all  the  privileges  of  his  holy  family, 
should  exhibit  more  of  the  "spirit  of  Christ"  than  those 
who  are  u  none  of  his."  Demonstration  itself  cannot  be  . 
more  unquestionable.  To  represent  this  as  an  unfair  and 
odious  comparison  between  two  or  more  churches,  is 
wholly  deceptive.  Nothing  can  be  further  from  the  truth. 
For,  according  to  the  high-church  doctrine,  the  comparison 
between  their  body  and  other  denominations,  is  a  compari- 
son between  the  only  true  church,  and  the  "  world  which 
lieth  in  wickedness"  Now,  that  there  should  be  more 
genuine,  consistent,  and  truly  spiritual  religion  in  the  for- 
mer than  in  the  latter,  every  one  who  believes  that  the 
church  is  Christ's  family,  and  that  to  belong  to  it  is  a  pri- 


xlii  PRELIMINARY  LETTER. 

vilege  of  any  real  value,  will,  without  hesitation,  acknow- 
ledge. 

What,  then,  in  reference  to  this  subject,  is  the  FACT  ? 
To  those  who  have  had  an  opportunity  .of  surveying  and 
comparing  different  denominations  of  professing  Christians, 
let  the  appeal  be  made.  Are  the  members  of  the  Episco- 
pal Church,  and  especially  those  who  contend  for  high- 
church  principles,  distinguished,  above  all  other  professors 
of  religion,  for  their  piety,  zeal  and  universal  holiness  of 
practice  ?  Are  they  more  devout,  more  prayerful,  more 
exemplary  in  abstaining  from  every  appearance  of  evil,  and 
in  maintaining  a  conversation  becoming  the  Gospel  ?  When 
we  look  over  Episcopal  congregations,  do  we  find  them 
every  where  drawing  to  their  solemn  assemblies  the  most 
truly  serious,  spiritual  and  devoted  classes  of  professors ; 
and  as  manifestly  repelling  from  their  communion  the 
giddy,  the  worldly,  and  the  licentious  ?  It  is  not  denied, 
that  there  are  many  noble  examples  of  Christian  character 
in  that  denomination  ;  but  are  they  more,  numerous  than 
in  any  other  ?  Is  it,  or  is  it  not  notorious,  that  the  great 
body  of  Episcopal  churches  in  our  land,  instead  of  excel- 
ling all  others  in  the  strictness  and  purity  of  their  religious 
example,  are  inferior  to  many  other  denominations,  in  those 
characteristics  which  are  universally  allowed  to  belong 
essentially  to  the  spirit  of  Christ  ?  Where  is  the  Lord's 
day  most  carefully  sanctified  ?  Where  does  the  spirit  of 
prayer  most  manifestly  abound  ?  Where  do  revivals  of 
religion  most  frequently  occur  ?  Where,  in  general,  is 
there  the  greatest  amount  of  sympathy  for  those  who  are 
"  sitting  in  darkness,  and  in  the  region  and  shadow  of 
death,"  and  of  effort  and  sacrifice  to  send  them  the  light  of 
life  ?  Where,  in  a  word,  is  there  the  most  withdrawment 
from  the  maxims  and  habits  of  a  vain  world,  and  the  great- 
est activity  and  zeal  in  every  good  word  and  work?  I  ask 
again — Is  there  more  of  all  these  among  Episcopalians  than 
among  other  denominations  ?  I  do  not  believe  there  is  an 


PRELIMINARY  LETTER.  xliii 

Episcopalian  in  the  United  States,  of  common  discernment 
and  common  honesty,  whose  conscience  will  allow  him  to 
answer  this  question  in  the  affirmative. 

Again  ;  how  shall  we  account  for  the  fact,  that  those  who 
are  devoted  to  worldly  pleasure,  ambition  and  splendour; 
those  who  hate  faithful  preaching,  and  strict  discipline; 
those  who  wish  to  bear  the  Christian  name,  but  not  to  have 
the  trouble  of  any  anxious  thought,  inquiry,  or  self-denial 
on  the  subject ;  those  who  lean  to  the  utmost  laxity  of  re- 
ligious principle,  but  yet  do  not  choose  openly  to  take  their 
station  with  Unitarians  and  Universalists ;  those,  in  a  word, 
who  content  themselves  with  "  the  form  of  godliness  with- 
out the  power  thereof;"  how,  I  say,  shall  we  account  for 
the  fact,  that  all  these  are  found,  in  general,  resorting  to  the 
Episcopal,  in  preference  to  other  churches,  wherever  there 
is  one  of  that  denomination  at  hand ;  and  this  not  because 
they  have  examined  the  peculiar  claims  of  that  church,  and 
found  them  firmly  sustained  ;  but  because  they  find  less  to 
disturb  them  in  their  course  of  worldly  pleasure  ? 

It  is  painful  to  present  interrogatories  of  this  kind  ;  but 
our  neighbours  have  compelled  us.  I  am  aware,  indeed, 
that  this  whole  argument  is  often  indignantly  repelled  by 
those  to  whom  it  applies,  as  odious  and  unjust.  But  I  will 
venture  to  say,  that  there  never  was  an  appeal  more  legiti- 
mate, reasonable  or  resistless ;  and  that  the  advocate  of 
high-church  principles  can  never  dispose  of  it  but  by  so- 
phistry or  evasion.  If  the  fact  be  as  I  have  stated  ;  and  I 
rather  suppose  it  will  not  be  questioned  by  any  well-in- 
formed and  candid  Episcopalian  ;  then,  of  all  wonderful 
facts,  it  is  one  of  the  most  inexplicable,  on  the  supposition 
that  Episcopalians  are  the  only  people  in  covenant  with 
God ;  the  only  people  who  know  any  thing  of  holy  com- 
munion with  the  Saviour,  or  who  have  any  interest  in 
"  the  exceeding  great  and  precious  promises"  of  his  word  ! 

XI.  Another  consideration  occurs  of  deep  and  growing 
interest  at  the  present  day.  It  is,  that  the  claim  which  I 


PRELIMINARY  LETTER. 

oppose  is  altogether  HOSTILE  TO  THAT  HARMONY  OP  FEEL- 
ING AND  EFFORT  FOR  THE  SPREAD  OF  THE  GOSPEL,  WHICH 
CHARACTERIZES  THE  PRESENT  AGE. 

Perhaps  there  is  no  feature  of  the  period  in  which  we 
live,  more  gratifying  to  the  pious  mind,  and  more  promis- 
ing with  respect  to  the  future,  than  the  fact,  that  Chris- 
tians of  different  denominations  are  more  united  in  spirit 
than  formerly ;  more  disposed  to  feel  as  "  one  body  in 
Christ,"  and  to  act  together  in  those  great  plans  which 
have  for  their  object  the  diffusion  of  Christian  knowledge, 
and  the  extension  of  the  Redeemer's  kingdom.  We  have 
witnessed  the  delightful  spectaclexof  ministers  of  the  gospel, 
and  private  Christians,  of  various  ecclesiastical  connections, 
who,  until  lately,  stood  aloof  from  each  other,  coming  to- 
gether with  fraternal  affection,  and  cordially  co-operating 
in  efforts  to  send  the  book  of  God,  and  the  glad  tidings  of 
salvation  throughout  the  world.  We  have  seen  these  noble 
coalitions  in  our  own  land,  in  Bible  Societies,  Missionary 
Societies,  Tract  Societies,  and  other  associations  for  pro- 
moting the  temporal  and  eternal  welfare  of  men.  And  we 
have  heard  of  pious,  warm  hearted  missionaries  of  the 
Presbyterian,  Methodist,  and  Baptist  denominations,  and 
even,  in  one  or  two  cases,  Episcopalians  (in  whom  the 
love  of  Christ  and  his  cause  happily  triumphed  over  the 
love  of  sect),  meeting  on  foreign  shores,  taking  sweet 
counsel,  and  communing  together  as  brethren  in  Christ, 
with  heart-felt  affection  and  delight.  That  such  truly 
refreshing  scenes  are  becoming  more  frequent,  every 
Christian  ought  to  rejoice,  and  to  pray  that  the  spirit  which 
produces  them  may  fill  the  world. 

But  with  this  spirit  the  high  church  doctrine  is  utterly  and 
irreconcilably  at  war.  Its  language,  even  to  the  most  pious 
and  devoted  individual  breathing,  out  of  its  own  pale  is,  "Stand 
by,  for  I  am  holier  than  thou."  It  refuses  to  co-operate  with 
non-episcopal  Christians  in  anything.  Even  in  circulating  the 
Bible,  "  without  note  or  comment,"  it  declines  to  take  any 


PRELIMINARY   LETTER.  xly 

part,  unless  its  own  sectarian  forms  can  accompany  every 
copy  of  the  word  of  life.  Nay,  even  amidst  the  darkness 
and  misery  of  perishing  millions,  it  can  deliberately  say, 
"  Let  nothing  be  done  if  it  cannot  be  comprehended  in  our 
f<  own  enclosure.  Let  every  plan  of  mercy  be  suspended, 
"  every  effort  of  Christian  benevolence  abandoned,  rather 
"  than  run  the  risk  of  departing  from  the  ( uninterrupted 
"  succession ;'  rather,  than  suffer  gospel  ordinances  to  be 
"  distributed  otherwise  than  in  conformity  with  rigid 
"  (  canonical  regularity.'  r  I  do  not  mean  that  this  is  the 
language  often  uttered  by  the  lips  of  high  churchmen  ;  but 
that  it  is  the  unavoidable  and  unequivocal  language  of  their 
principles  ;  and  that  these  principles  lead  to  corresponding 
practical  results.  Indeed,  there  is  reason  to  fear  that,  in 
some  cases  even  low  churchmen  have  caught  something  of 
the  infection,  and  manifested  a  spirit  closely  allied  with 
that  of  which  I  speak.  One  professedly  of  this  class,  has 
been  known  to  offer  his  services  to  a  respectable  missionary 
association  for  a  foreign  mission ;  but  at  the  same  time 
distinctly  to  announce,  that  if  he  should  be  sent  forth  in 
company  with  other  missionaries,  not  Episcopally  ordained, 
he  could  not  possibly,  when  he  should  arrive  on  the  foreign 
field,  receive  the  sacramental  symbols  from  theifr  hands, 
but  only  when  dispensed  by  himself!  The  missionary 
association  in  question,  of  course,  thought  it  wise  to  decline 
annexing  such  an  individual  to  a  body,  all  the  other  mem- 
bers of  which  were  of  one  heart,  and  one  soul.  This  oc- 
currence would  not  have  been  thought  worthy  of  notice, 
did  it  not  serve  to  illustrate  the  fact,  that  even  some  low 
churchmen  are  beginning,  contrary  to  all  their  former  pro- 
testations, to  disclose  some  leaning  to  the  high  church 
doctrine,  or,  at  any  rate,  to  act  upon  it.  In  truth,  when 
they  are  once,  in  any  degree,  entangled  in  the  toils  of  the 
prelatical  claim,  it  is  easy  to  see  that  they  can  scarcely  fail 
of  finding  themselves  involved  in  embarrassments  of  the 
most  serious  kind. 
7 


xlvi  PRELIMINARY    LETTER. 

Is  it  not  evident,  then,  my  Christian  brethren,  that  the 
high  and  exclusive  claim  under  consideration,  is  peculiarly 
unfriendly  to  the  spirit  of  the  present  day  ? — a  day  in 
which  the  union  of  effort  to  spread  the  knowledge  of  the 
Gospel  is  manifestly  increasing;  when  the  spirit  of  our 
common  Christianity  is  beginning,  if  I  am  not  deceived,  to 
be  better  understood,  more  deeply  felt,  and  more  divested 
of  human  additions; — when  Christians  are  beginning  to 
distinguish  more  accurately  than  formerly  between  the 
essentials  and  the  forms  of  religion,  and  to  see  that  many 
things,  which  once  kept  them  apart,  ought  no  longer  to  do 
so.  In  such  a  day  as  this,  the  spirit  of  high-church,  which 
was  always  antichristian,  is  peculiarly  unseasonable  and 
odious;  unfriendly  to  the  universal  spread  of  the  Gospel; 
utterly  inconsistent  with  harmonious  effort  in  this  great 
cause  ;  fitted  to  create  difficulty  and  obstacle  at  every  step ; 
calculated  to  degrade  our  holy  religion  in  the  eyes  of  the 
heathen ;  or  to  tempt  the  heathen  to  exchange  one  super- 
stition for  another,  a  little  more  decent  and  respectable, 
but,  when  made  the  ground  of  hope,  quite  as  delusive  and 
fatal  as  their  most  miserable  idolatries. 

Such,  my  respected  Christian  brethren,  are  some  of  my 
objections  to  the  high  and  exclusive  claim  which  it  is  the 
object  of  the  following  pages  to  disprove.  It  is  utterly 
destitute  of  all  warrant  from  Scripture.  It  is  entirely 
unsupported  by  an  appeal  to  the  earliest  uninspired  records 
of  the  Christian  church.  It  is,  undoubtedly,  an  innovation 
on  the  primitive  model  of  ecclesiastical  order.  The  original 
reformers  in  England  did  not  receive  it.  In  the  best  and 
purest  period  of  the  reformed  church  in  that  country,  it 
was  unknown  ;  and  did  not  obtain  a  footing  until  orthodoxy 
and  piety  had  both  grievously  declined.  It  is  a  claim  pre- 
sumptuous, unreasonable,  uncharitable ;  generally  found  in 
connection  with  other  errors  of  very  unhappy  tendency; 
unfriendly  to  civil  and  religious  liberty  ;  unsupported  by 


PRELIMINARY   LETTER.  xlvii 

any  benign  and  practical  influence  ;  and  unfavourable  to 
affectionate  union  of  effort  in  evangelizing  the  world.  That 
which  is  manifestly  liable  to  all  these  objections,  cannot  be 
of  God,  and  ought  not  be  encouraged  by  those  who  desire 
the  real  prosperity  of  the  Redeemer's  kingdom. 

To  every  Presbyterian,  then,  in  the  United  States,  I 
would  say,  Be  not  deceived  with  the  idea  that  the  doctrine 
contended  for  by  high  churchmen  is  a  mere  innocent  specu-« 
lation  ;  erroneous,  indeed,  but  likely  to  do  little  harm, 
even  if  extensively  embraced.  If  the  foregoing  repre- 
sentation be  correct,  this  is  an  entire  mistake.  It  is  a 
doctrine  founded  in  important  error,  and  replete  with  prac- 
tical mischief.  If,  therefore,  my  beloved  brethren,  you 
wish  well  to  the  cause  of  Christ  in  our  land  ;  if  you  desire 
to  see  a  spirit  of  harmony  and  love  growing  among  Chris- 
tians ;  if  your  hearts  warm  with  the  hope  of  seeing  pure 
and  scriptural  revivals  of  religion  pervading  every  part  of 
our  country ;  if  you  would  guard  against  every  thing  in- 
imical to  Christian  liberty,  and  cherish  every  thing  friendly 
to  the  diffusion  of  the  genuine  spirit  of  the  gospel ; — then 
beware  6f  the  delusion  of  these  men.  I  charge  them  with 
no  sinister  intention  ;  but  their  doctrine  and  claim,  when 
traced  to  their  legitimate  consequences,  are  undoubtedly 
calculated  to  bring  back  the  reign  of  Popery,  and  re-esta- 
blish that  thraldom  of  ecclesiastical  domination,  of  which 
the  world  has  already  seen  so  many  mournful  examples. 
It  is- adapted — whether  they  design  it  or  not — to  arrest 
the  progress  of  all  that  is  simple  and  scriptural  in  principle, 
of  all  that  is  holy  in  practice,  and  of  all  that  is  diffusive, 
unshackled,  fraternal,  and  affectionate  in  Christian  inter- 
course and  Christian  effort. 

I  am  aware  that  my  character  among  those  who  know 
me,  is  that  of  a  firm,  and  even  zealous  Presbyterian.  This 
character  I  am  willing  to  own.  I  have  no  doubt  that  the 
substance  of  Presbyterian  ism  is  to  be  found  in  the  Bible  ; 
that  it  continued  to  prevail  in  the  primitive  church,  two 


PRELIMINARY  LETTER. 

full  centuries  after  the  days  of  the  apostles  ;  and  that  it  is 
unspeakably  better  adapted  than  any  form  of  church  go- 
vernment, to  bind  the  body  of  Christ  together  in  truth, 
love,  holy  living,  and  universal  edification.  Yet,  I  am  free 
to  say,  that,  much  as  I  love  this  form  of  ecclesiastical  or- 
der, I  consider  it  as  a  trifle  when  brought  into  competition 
with  the  great  interests  of  vital  piety,  and  the  salvation  of 
the  souls  of  men.  I  have  no  more  doubt  that  a  church 
may  exist  and  flourish  under  a  different  form,  than  I  have 
that  a  man  may  be  pious,  without  being  a  Calvinist  in  his 
doctrinal  belief.  When  I  meet  with  an  Episcopal  brother, 
who,  though  he  decisively  prefers  prelacy,  and  thinks  he 
can  find  it  in  primitive  antiquity ;  yet  forbears  to  put  his 
bishop  in  the  place  of  the  Saviour,  and  preaches  the  truth 
in  love — I  regard  him  with  cordial  affection,  and  can  un- 
feignedly  wish  well,  not  only^to  his  person,  but  also  to  his 
ministry.  Nay,  I  consider  the  success  of  any  religious 
party  ;  the  triumph  of  any  external  denomination,  as  un- 
worthy of  regard,  when  compared  with  the  great  object  of 
"  turning  men  from  darkness  to  light,  and  from  the  power 
"  of  Satan  to  the  kingdom  of  God's  dear  Son."  "  If  I  am 
not  utterly  deceived,  I  love  a  pious,  warm  hearted,  exem- 
plary Episcopalian,  more,  far  more  than  a  cold,  formal 
worldly  Presbyterian.  Nor  have  I  the  smallest  desire 
that  Episcopalians  should  surrender  their  decided  prefer- 
ence for  prelacy,  or  their  firm  belief  in  its  apostolic  origin, 
for  the  sake  of  pleasing  other  denominations.  This  would 
be  an  unreasonable  demand.  All  I  lament,  is,  that  they  lay 
a  degree  of  stress  on  an  outward  form  which  the  Bible 
knows  nothing  of ;  and  that  they  adopt  a  principle,  without 
the  slightest  warrant,  which  necessarily  leads  to  a  system 
of  proscription,  denunciation,  and  war  toward  all  other 
Protestant  churches.  I  abhor  the  thought  of  making  the 
form  of  ecclesiastical  polity  a  fundamental  of  Christianity. 
You  may  be  ZEALOUS  PRESBYTERIANS,  and  yet  not  REAL 
CHRISTIANS.  And  just  in  proportion  to  the  degree  in  which 


PRELIMINARY  LETTER.  xlix 

you  possess  the  genuine  spirit  of  Christ,  will  you  disap- 
prove of  the  error,  in  whomsoever  it  is  found,  of  placing 
rites  and  forms  among  the  essentials  of  religion. 

Allow  me  to  say,  my  respected  friends,  that  this  is  the 
Presbyterianism  which  I  would  earnestly  recommend  to 
you.  Not  that  inordinate  attachment  to  a  name  and  a  form 
which  is  the  offspring  of  narrow  views,  sectarian  feelings, 
and  blind  prejudice;  but  that  candid,  sober  preference, 
which  placef*ecclesiastical  order  where  it  ought  to  be 
placed,  as  a  secondary  matter  ; — and  which  recognizes  the 
fact,  that  men  may  entertain  different  views  on  this  subject, 
and  yet  be  equally  pious  believers,  and,  of  course,  equally 
safe  in  their  hopes  of  heaven.  This,  I  have  reason  to  be- 
lieve, is  the  prevailing  sentiment,  both  among  ministers  and 
people,  of  the  body  to  which  we  are  so  happy  as  to  belong. 
May  it  ever  be  one  of  our  laudable  distinctions  !  Let  no- 
thing tempt  yoa  to  depart  from  this  sentiment.  Never  per- 
mit even  the  sectarian  violence  of  other  denominations  to 
drive  you  into  an  imitation  of  their  unhallowed  spirit.  Let 
them  denounce  your  ministry,  and  sneer  at  your  ordinances 
and  your  hopes.  Be  it  your  resblution  to  return  good 
for  evil  ;  and  to  love  and  honour  them  as  brethren  in  Christ, 
as  far  as  they  appear  to  bear  his  image,  although  they  may 
reject  and  vilify  you.  Remember  that  their  acknowledging 
you,  or  refusing  to  do  it,  is  nothing,  if  Christ  acknowledge 
you.  When  the  Judaizing  teachers,  in  the  days  of  Paul, 
urged  an  adherence  to  the  ceremonial  observances  of  the 
old  economy,  as  necessary  to  salvation  ;  the  apostle,  who 
had  been  better  taught,  instead  of  manifesting  any  anxiety 
for  the  safety  of  himself,  and  his  fellow  disciples,  who  re- 
jected the  Jewish  doctrine  and  who  were  thus  denounced, 
seemed  chiefly  concerned  for  the  welfare  of  those  who  were 
carried  away  by  this  delusion,  and  to  guard  others  against 
its  influence.  In  like  manner,  so  far  from  being  doubtful 
whether  you  may  be  saved  out  of  the  Episcopal  church,  my 
deep  conviction  is,  that  the  danger  is  all  the  other  way  ; — 


1  PRELIMINARY  LETTER. 

that  there  is  REAL  DANGER — not  in  being  found  in  an 
Episcopal  church,  as  such  ;  for  there  I  have  no  doubt  there 
may  be  as  ardent  piety,  and  as  precious,  well  founded  hopes 
as  in  the  Presbyterian  or  any  other  :  but  REAL  DANGER  in 
being  found  in  an  ecclesiastical  inclosure  in  which  the  high 
church  doctrine,  with  all  its  usual  spirit  and  accompanying 
errors,  form  the  prevalent  system.  But  even  toward  the 
advocates  of  these,  guard  against  a  spirit  of  acrimony  or 
retaliation.  Compassionate  their  error.  *£rav  without 
ceasing  for  their  illumination.  And  endeavour  to  win  them 
by  the  patient  exercise  of  a  kind,  respectful,  and  fraternal 
spirit.  However  the  manifestation  of  such  a  spirit  may  be 
received  by  them,  it  will  promote  your  own  comfort  and 
benefit,  both  with  God  and  man.  No  good  effort  was  ever 
lost;  no  holy  temper  was  ever  exercised  in  vain. 

Let  none  say,  that  the  design  of  these  remarks  is  to  cast 
odium  on  a  large,  and,  certainly,  very  respectable  denomina- 
tion of  Christians.  I  again  declare,  that  nothing  is  further 
from  my  design.  Against  Episcopalians,  as  a  body,  I  have 
not  the  smallest  disposition  to  say  a  word.  With  respect  to 
them,  as  well  as  various  other  denominations  around  me, 
whom  I  can  respect  and  love  while  I  differ  from  them: 
I  would  say— may  God  bless  and  prosper  them  in  all  their 
honest  endeavours  to  bring  men  to  the  saving  knowledge, 
love,  and  obedience  of  the  truth !  But  episcopacy,  as  a  form 
of  ecclesiastical  government,  and  the  decided  preference 
and  use  of  it,  as  marking  a  sect  of  Christians,  may  be  dis- 
tinguished, and  must  be  distinguished  from  the  doctrine 
and  spirit  of  high-churchmen.  They  WERE  distinguished 
by  Cranmer,  Grindal,  <Abbot,  Hall,  and  Usher,  in  for- 
mer days  of  the  church  of  England ;  and  by  Tillotson, 
Wake,  Seeker,  Newton,  Scott,  and  others,  in  later  times. 
All  these  were  Episcopalians,  and  most  of  them  eminent 
prelates  ;  none  of  them,  however,  were  high-churchmen, 
but  renounced  and  abhorred  their  doctrine,  and  the  claim 
resulting  from  it,  as  much  as  we  do.  And  one  of  the  most 


PRELIMINARY   LETTER.  li 

learned  of  them  all,  Archbishop  Wake,  expressly  stigma- 
tizes the  advocates  of  this  doctrine  as  "madmen."  With 
such  Episcopalians,  every  contemporary  Presbyterian  lived 
in  peace;  and  with  such  men,  we  may  and  do  live  in 
peace  now.  There  are  points  of  difference  between 
us ;  but  nothing  to  interfere  with  Christian  love  and  good 
neighbourhood.  But  the  doctrine  which,  is  sometimes 
found  among  Episcopalians ;  which  attained  very  little 
currency  or  popularity  in  the  church  of  England,  until  the 
time  of  Archbishop  Laud,  of  inglorious  memory;  which, 
from  that  time  to  this,  we  have  reason  to  ,be  thankful,  has 
been  the  doctrine  of  only  a  minority  of  the  Protestant 
Episcopal  Church  ;  and  which  it  is  really  an  imposition 
on  public,  credulity  to  identify  with  that  church,  as  a  Chris- 
tian denomination; — this  doctrine,  which  but  faintly  dis- 
guises its  Popish  character,  is  odious,  and  ought  »to  be  so 
considered  ;  and  I  do  not  deny  that  it  is  my  intention  to 
hold  it  up  to  public  odium  whenever  I  have  occasion  to 
speak  of  it.  It  is  a  system  of  belief,  and  of  action,  which 
not  only  declares  war  against  all  other  denominations; 
but  its  very  element  is  war,  and  so  far  as  the  views  and 
wishes  of  those  who  wage  it  go,  nothing  less  than  a  war  of 
extermination.  'Is  it  inconsistent  with  either  Christian  can- 
dour or  charity  to  represent  such  a  system  as  worthy  of 
being  held  up  to  public  odium  ? 

It  militates  nothing  against  this  representation  to  allege, 
that  the  men  who  advocate  this  exclusive  system  are  honest 
in  their  convictions,  and  benevolent  in  their  intentions. 
This  is  not  denied  or  doubted.  But  so,  unquestionably,  is 
the  serious  Romanist,  when  he  proclaims  eternal  perdition 
as  inevitable  to  all  who  are  not  in  communion  with  the 
bishop  of  Rome;  and  denounces  the  same  penalty  against 
all  who  reject  the  penances  and  absolutions  dispensed  by 
his  "  priesthood/'  But  neither  the  sincerity  of  his  belief 
in  what  he  tells  us^  nor  the  kindness  of  his  intentions  in 
warning  us  of  a  danger  which  he  unfeignedly  considers  as 


Hi  PRELIMINARY  LETTER. 

real,  can  alter  the  odious  character  of  the  dogmas  which  he 
urges;  or  diminish  the  obligation  resting  upon  every  one 
who  loves  the  happiness  or  the  liberty  of  his  country,  to 
set  himself  against  them  with  fixed  and  firm  opposition. 

With  the  intentions  of  high-churchmen  we  have  noth- 
ing to  do  ;  but  the  spirit  and  tendency  of  their  claims  we 
are  bound,  as  members  of  the  Church  of  Christ,  to  under- 
stand, and  to  place  in  a  proper  light  before  ourselves  and 
others.  Fidelity  to  our  Master  in  heaven  demands  this  of 
us.  The  best  interests  of  our  children,  who  may  be  mis- 
led by  their  plausible  confidence,  demand  it  of  us.  The 
duty  which  we  owe  to  our  truly  primitive  and  apostolic 
Church  requires  it  at  our  hands.  Nay,  we  are  called  to  this 
duty  by  the  obligations  which,  as  patriots,  we  owe  to  the 
rights  and  privileges  of  our  beloved  country.  Never  was 
there  a  country  or  an  age,  in  which  the  claim  in  question 
was  lessen  accordance,  .than  that  in  which  our  lot  is  cast. 
The  happy  civil  constitutions  under  which  we  live,  re- 
garding with  equal  eye  all  denominations,  call  upon  our 
several  Churches,  in  the  most  emphatic  language,  to  live  in 
peace  with  one  another.  The  great  movements  in  the  re- 
ligious world  which  mark  the  beginning  of  the  nineteenth 
century,  proclaim  as  loudly  and  solemnly  as  the  events  of 
any  period  ever  did,  that  all  the  real  friends  of  Christ 
ought  to  be  united  against  the  common  enemy,  and  in  sup- 
port of  their  common  Christianity.  Is  this  a  country,  and 
is  this  a  day  in  which  the  very  thought  can  be  admitted, 
that  professing  Christians  should  spend  their  time  in 
"  doting  about  questions  and  strifes  of  words,  whereof 
come  envy,  railings,  evil  surmisings,  and  corrupt  disput- 
ings  ?"  Is  this  a  time  for  "  Judah  to  vex  Ephraim,  and 
Ephraim  to  vex  Judah"  when  there  is  so  much  common 
ground  on  which  both  may  peacefully  stand  ;  and  when  the 
importunate  cries  of  a  dying  and  supplicating  world — cries 
which  ought  to  move  the  hearts  and  summon  the  energies 
of  all  Christians,  to  the  great  work  of  sending  the  bread 


PRELIMINARY  LETTER.  liii 

and  the  water  of  life  to  famishing  millions  ?  Whatever 
others  may  do,  my  Christian  friends,  be  it  far  from  YOU  to 
indulge  a  spirit  unworthy  of  the  name  you  bear.  Be  it 
your  constant  care  to  "  study  the  things  which  make  for 
peace,  and  the  things  wherewith  one  may  edify  another." 
And  then,  whatever  may  become  of  this  controversy,  as  a 
matter  of  logical  discussion,  you  will  be  certain  of  the  best 
of  all  victories, — a  victory  over  unhallowed  tempers  and 
practices ;  a  victory  over  strife  and  division ;  and  over 
every  thing  that  interferes  with  the  union  and  edification 
of  the  body  of  Christ. 

I  am ,  my  Christian  Brethren, 

Your  affectionate  servant  in  the  Gospel, 

SAMUEL  MILLER. 

Princeton,  Sept.  \§th,  1830. 


LETTERS 


CONCERNING 


THE    CONSTITUTION    AND    ORDER 


OF 


BY  SAMUEL  MILLER,  D.  D. 


PART  I. 


LETTERS 


THE    CHRISTIAN    MINISTRY. 


LETTER    I. 

INTRODUCTORY. 

CHRISTIAN  BRETHREN, 

RELIGION  is  the  common  business  of  all  men.  Its  duties 
cannot  be  performed  by  delegation.  Every  man  is  required  to 
examine,  to  believe,  and  to  obey  the  gospel  for  himself,  and  for 
himself  to  receive  the  promised  reward.  We  may  commit  other 
concerns  to  the  wisdom  and  fidelity  of  our  fellow-men  :  but  the  care 
of  his  own  soul  belongs  to  each  individual ;  and  if  he  neglect  it,  no 
solicitude,  no  exertions  on  the  part  of  others,  can  possibly  avail 
him. 

But  although  religion  be  a  concern  which  equally  belongs  to 
every  man,  yet  it  has  pleased  the  all- wise  Head  of  the  Church  to 
appoinfnn  order  of  men  more  particularly  to  minister  in  holy  things: 
not  to  supersede  the  attention  of  other  individuals  to  this  object, 
but  to  stimulate,  to  guide,  and  in  various  ways  to  assist  them  in 
this  attention.  For  when  this  divine  Instructer  ascended  up  on 
high,  he  gave  some  to  be  prophets,  and  some  apostles,  and  some 
evangelists,  and  some  pastors  and  teachers,  for  the  perfecting  of 
the  saints,  for  the  work  of  the  ministry,  for  the  edifying  of  the 
body  of  Christ. 

Prophets  and  apostles  are  no  longer  continued  in  the  Church ; 
because  the  immediate  inspiration,  and  the  miraculous  powers 
with  which  they  were  endowed,  are  no  longer  necessary  in 
dispensing  the  gospel.  But  though  the  age  of  inspired  men,  and 
of  miracles  be  past,  the  Redeemer  still  continues  the  ministry  of 
reconciliation.  He  still  continues  to  raise  up  and  send  forth  a 
A 


2  LETTER  I. 

succession  of  ambassadors,  to  declare  his  will,  and  to  offer  pardon 
and  life  to  a  fallen  race. 

The  office  sustained  by  ministers  of  the  gospel  is  designated 
in  scripture  by  a  variety  of  names.  They  are  sometimes  called 
Bishops,  because  they  are  overseers  of  the  flock  committed  to  their 
charge.  They  are  frequently  styled  Presbyters,  or  Elders,  which 
are  words  of  the  same  import,  because,  if  not  really  advanced 
in  age,  they  are  bound  to  maintain  the  dignity  and  gravity  of 
ecclesiastical  rulers.  They  are  denominated  Pastors,  because  it 
is  their  duty  to  feed  the  flock  of  God.  They  are  called  Doctors 
and  Teachers,  because  they  are  required  to  instruct  those  commit- 
ted to  their  care,  in  the  doctrines  and  duties  of  religion.  They 
are  said  to  be  Ambassadors,  importing  that  their  duty  is  to  declare 
the  will  of  their  Sovereign,  and  to  negotiate  a  peace  between  the 
offended  Majesty  of  heaven  and  guilty  men.  They  are  represented 
as  Ministers  or  Servants,  because  in  all  that  they  lawfully  say  and 
do,  they  act  under  the  authority  of  a  Master,  whose  declared  will 
is  their  guide.  They  are  Stewards  of  the  mysteries  of  God,  having 
the  spiritual  provisions  of  his  house  committed  to  them  to  be 
dispensed.  They  are  Watchmen,  being  placed  to  guard  the 
welfare  of  Zion,  to  give  notice  to  men  of  their  danger,  and  to 
exercise  a  vigilant  care  over  all  the  interests  of  the  Redeemer's 
kingdom.  They  are  Shepherds,  inasmuch  as  they  are  appointed 
to  feed,  protect,  guide,  and  govern  the  flock,  under  the  direction 
of  the  Chief  Shepherd.  And,  finally,  according  to  the  language 
of  scripture,  they  are  Workmen  and  Labourers,  because  they 
have  a  particular  task  assigned  them;  and  because  a  faithful 
discharge  of  their  duties  requires  diligence,  exertion,  and  persevering 
labour. 

Every  thing  relating  to  the  Christian  Church  is  important, 
and  worthy  of  our  serious  attention.  But  it  too  often  happens, 
that,  on  account  of  particular  states  of  societ}1,  or  other  peculiar 
circumstances,  some  portions  of  the  system  of  revealed  truth  are 
less  regarded  and  examined  than  their  relative  importance  demands. 
Accordingly,  it  has  appeared  to  me,  for  several  years  past,  that 
the  order  of  Christ  and  his  apostles  respecting  the  CHRISTIAN 
MINISTRY,  is  a  subject  which  has  received  less  of  your  attention, 
and  is,  by  many  of  you,  less  understood  than  it  ought  to  be  by 
those  who  profess  to  be  members  of  that  holy  community,  which 


INTRODUCTORY.  3 

ministers  are  appointed  to  serve  and  to  govern.  If  all  the  interests 
of  the  Church  are  precious  in  the  view  of  ?very  enlightened 
Christian,  it  is  evident  that  the  mode  of  organization  cannot  be  a 
trivial  concern  ;  and  if  the  Saviour,  or  those  who  were  immediately 
taught  by  his  Spirit,  have  laid  down  any  rules,  or  given  us  any 
information  on  this  subject,  it  behoves  us  carefully  to  study  what 
they  have  delivered,  and  to  make  it  our  constant  guide.  Under 
these  impressions,  I  have  determined  to  request  your  candid 
attention  to  some  remarks  on  the  doctrine  held  by  our  Church 
respecting  the  Christian  Ministry,  and  especially  as  to  the  points 
in  which  we  differ,  on  this  subject,  from  our  Episcopal  brethren. 

You  will  do  me  the  justice  to  acknowledge,  that,  in  the  course 
of  my  ministry  among  you,  I  have  never  manifested  a  spirit  of 
bigotry  or  disputation.  Indeed,  some  of  you,  I  know,  have 
considered  me  as  too  reluctant  to  engage  in  the  public  discussion 
of  various  subjects  disputed  between  our  Church  and  those  of 
other  religious  denominations.  My  great  attachment  to  peace 
among  Christians,  and  my  earnest  desire  to  promote  that  charity 
without  which  faith  and  hope  are  vain,  have  always  rendered  me 
unwilling  to  embark  in  controversy.  My  readers,  therefore,  will 
do  me  great  injustice  if  they  suppose  that  any  thing  in  the  following 
sheets  is  dictated  by  a  spirit  of  animosity  or  bitterness  towards  any 
portion  of  the  religious  community,  or  is  intended  to  cherish  such 
a  spirit  in  others.  My  object  is,  not  to  intrude  into  another 
society  for  the  purpose  of  making  proselytes  ;  not  to  disturb  the 
convictions,  or  irritate  the  feelings  of  any  who  are  fixed  in  a 
different  creed  from  mine;  but  to  inform  and  satisfy  you,  who  are 
not  only  of  my  own  denomination,  but  more  particularly  committed 
to  my  charge,  that  you  have  not  followed  cunningly  devised  fables; 
that  you  are  connected  with  a  Church  as  nearly  conformed  to 
apostolic  and  primitive  order  as  any  on  earth  :  and  that  Christian 
ordinances  come  to  you  in  a  channel  at  least  as  pure  and  legitimate, 
and  in  a  manner  at  least  as  agreeable  to  the  simplicity  that  is  in 
Christ,  as  to  those  who  make  the  most  extravagant  and  exclusive 
claims. 

In  the  discussion  of  all  controverted  subjects  it  is  of  the  utmost 
importance  to  ascertain,  at  the  commencement,  the  precise  state 
of  the  question.  Much  has  been  said  and  written  on  the  main 
subject  of  dispute  between  the  Presbyterian  and  Episcopal 


4  LETTER  I. 

Churches,  without  understanding,  or,  if  they  were  understood, 
without  distinguishing,  the  points  in  which  these  denominations 
agree,  and  in  which  they  differ.  To  guard  against  mistakes  here, 
it  will  be  proper  to  state  explicitly,  in  what  respects  their  opinions 
are  at  variance. 

We  agree  with  our  Episcopal  brethren  in  believing,  that  Christ 
hath  appointed  Officers  in  his  Church  to  preach  the  word,  to 
administer  sacraments,  to  dispense  discipline,  and  to  commit  these 
powers  to  other  faithful  men.  We  believe,  as  fully  as  they,  that 
there  are  different  classes  and  denominations  of  officers  in  the 
Church  of  Christ  5  and  that,  among  these,  there  is,  and  ought  to 
be,  a  due  subordination.  We  concur  with  them  in  maintaining, 
that  none  are  regularly  invested  with  the  ministerial  character,  or 
can  with  propriety  be  recognized  in  this  character,  but  those  who 
have  been  set  apart  to  the  office  by  persons  lawfully  clothed  with 
the  power  of  ordaining.  We  unite  with  such  of  them  as  hold  the 
opinion,  that  Christians,  in  all  ages,  are  bound  to  make  the  apos- 
tolic order  of  the  church,  with  respect  to  the  ministry,  as  well  as 
other  points,  the  model,  as  far  as  possible,  of  all  their  ecclesiastical 
arrangements.  And,  finally,  we  contend,  equally  with  them,  that 
both  the  name  and  the  office  of  Bishop  were  found  in  the  primi- 
tive Church,  and  ought  to  be  retained  to  the  end  of  time.  Many 
Episcopalians  of  narrow  views,  and  of  slender  information,  seem 
to  take  it  for  granted  that  we  discard  Bishops  in  every  sense  of 
the  word ;  and  therefore,  when  they  find  this  term  in  scripture,  or 
in  early  uninspired  writers,  they  exult,  as  if  the  word  established 
their  claim.  But  nothing  can  be  more  unfounded  than  this  triumph. 
We  all  acknowledge  that  there  were  Bishops  in  the  days  of  the 
apostles,  and  that  there  must  be  Bishops  in  every  regularly  con- 
stituted Church  in  every  age.* 

But  we  differ  from  that  denomination  of  Christians  in  our  views 

*  In  the  Form  of  Government  of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  the  pastors 
of  Churches  are  expressly  styled  Bishops;  and  this  title  is  recommended 
to  be  retained,  as  both  scriptural  and  appropriate.  The  same  may  be 
proved  with  respect  to  most,  if  not  all  the  Reformed  Churches.  I  am 
sensible  that  this  title,  as  applied  to  ordinary  pastors,  has  been  the  sub- 
ject of  much  ridicule  among  the  friends  of  prelacy;  a  ridicule,  however, 
which  recoils  with  double  force  upon  those  who  thus  betray  a  want  of 
acquaintance  with  the  primitive  application  of  the  word. 


INTRODUCTORY.  5 

of  the  character  and  powers  of  Church  officers.  They  suppose 
that  there  are  three  orders  in  the  Christian  ministry,  viz.  Bishops, 
Presbyters,  and  Deacons :  The  first  possessing  the  highest  eccle- 
siastical power ;  the  second  invested  with  authority  to  preach  and 
administer  both  sacraments;  and  the  third  empowered  only  to 
preach  and  baptize.  We  suppose,  on  the  other  hand,  that  there 
is,  properly  speaking,  but  one  order  of  gospel  ministers;  that 
there  are,  indeed,  two  other  classes  of  Church  officers,  viz.  ruling 
Elders,  and  Deacons  ;  but  that  neither  of  these  are  authorized  to 
labour  in  the  word  and  doctrine,  or  to  administer  either  of  the 
Christian  sacraments.  We  suppose  that  there  is  a  plain  distinc- 
tion made  in  scripture  between  Elders  who  only  rule,  and  Elders 
who,  to  the  power  of  ruling,  join  also  that  of  teaching  and  admin- 
istering sealing  ordinances.  And  we  believe,  that  the  friends  of 
modern  Episcopacy,  in  considering  Deacons  as  an  order  of  Clergy, 
and  in  empowering  them  to  preach  and  baptize,  are  chargeable 
with  a  departure  from  the  apostolic  pattern. 

But  we  differ  from  our  Episcopal  brethren,  principally,  with 
respect  to  the  character  and  powers  of  the  scriptural  Bishop.  They 
contend  that  Bishops  are  an  order  of  ministers  superior  to  Pres- 
byters, having  a  different  ordination,  different  powers,  and  a 
different  sphere  of  duty.  That  while  Presbyters  have  a  right,  by 
virtue  of  their  office,  to  preach  the  word,  and  administer  sacra- 
ments, to  Bishops  exclusively  belong  the  powers  of  ordination, 
confirmation,  and  government.  On  the  other  hand,  we  maintain, 
that  there  is  but  one  order  of  ministers  of  the  gospel  in  the 
Christian  Church ;  that  every  regular  pastor  of  a  congregation  is 
a  scriptural  Bishop  ;  or,  in  other  words,  that  every  Presbyter,  who 
has  been  set  apart,  by  the  laying  on  of  the  hands  of  the  Pres- 
bytery, and  who  has  the  pastoral  charge  of  a  particular  Church, 
is,  to  all  intents  and  purposes,  in  the  sense  of  scripture,  and 
of  the  primitive  Church,  a  Bishop ;  having  a  right,  in  company 
with  others,  his  equals,  to  ordain,  and  to  perform  every  service 
pertaining  to  the  Episcopal  office.  We  can  discover  no  warrant, 
either  from  the  word  of  God,  or  from  the  early  history  of  the 
Church,  for  what  is  called  the  Diocesan  Episcopacy,  or  the  pre- 
eminence and  authority  of  one  man,  under  the  title  of  Bishop,  or 
any  other  title,  over  a  number  of  Presbyters  and  Churches :  On 
the  contrary,  we  are  persuaded  and  affirm,  that  Christ  and  his 


6  LETTER  I. 

Apostles  expressly  discountenanced  such  claims  of  pre-eminence ; 
and  that  all  those  forms  of  ecclesiastical  government  which  are 
built  upon  these  claims,  are  corruptions  of  apostolic  simplicity,  and 
deviations  from  the  primitive  order  of  the  Church. 

This  being  the  case,  you  will  readily  perceive  the  necessity  of 
clearly  marking  and  keeping  in  view  a  distinction  between  the 
primitive  and  the  modern  sense  of  the  word  Bishop^  Accordingly, 
in  the  perusal  of  the  following  sheets,  you  are  earnestly  requested  to 
recollect,  at  every  step,  that  by  a  scriptural  or  primitive  Bishop, 
is  always  meant  a  Presbyter,  Minister,  Pastor,  or  whatever  else  he 
may  be  called,  who  has  the  pastoral  care  of  a  particular  congre- 
gation ;  and  that  by  scriptural  or  primitive  Episcopacy,  is  meant 
that  government  of  the  Church,  by  such  Bishops,  which  existed  in 
pure  apostolic  times,  and  for  near  two  hundred  years  afterwards. 
And,  on  the  other  hand,  that,  by  modern  Bishops,  and  modern 
Episcopacy,  is  meant  that  government  of  the  Church  by  prelates, 
which  took  its  rise  from  ecclesiastical  ambition,  long  after  the  days 
of  the  apostles,  and  which,  with  other  innovations  on  primitive 
order,  has  since  claimed  to  rest  on  the  authority  of  Christ. 

It  ought  further  to  be  understood,  that  among  those  who  espouse 
the  Episcopal  side  in  this  controversy,  there  are  three  classes. 

Thejzrs£  consists  of  those  who  believe  that  neither  Christ  nor 
his  Apostles  laid  down  any  particular  form  of  ecclesiastical  govern- 
ment, to  which  the  Church  is  hound  to  adhere  in  all  ages.  That 
every  Church  is  free,  consistently  with  the  divine  will,  to  frame  her 
constitution  agreeably  to  her  own  views,  to  the  state  of  society, 
and  to  the  exigencies  of  particular  times.  These  prefer  the 
Episcopal  government,  and  some  of  them  believe  that  it  was  the 
primitive  form ;  but  they  consider  it  as  resting  on  the  ground  of 
human  expediency  alone,  and  not  of  divine  appointment.  This  is 
well  known  to  have  been  the  opinion  of  Archbishops  Cranmer, 
Grindal,  and  Wliitgift ;  of  Bishop  Leighton,  of  Bishop  Jewel, 
of  Dr.  Whitaker,  of  Bishop  Reynolds,  of  Archbishop  Tillotson, 
of  Bishop  Burnet,  of  Bishop  Croft,  of  Dr.  Stilling  fleet,  and  of  a 
long  list  of  the  most  learned  and  pious  divines  of  the  Church  of 
England,  from  the  reformation  down  to  the  present  day. 

Another  class  of  Episcopalians  go  further.  They  suppose  that 
the  government  of  the  Church  by  Bishops,  as  a  superior  order  to 
Presbyters,  was  sanctioned  by  apostolic  example,  and  that  it  is  the 


INTRODUCTORY.  7 

duty  of  all  Churches  to  imitate  this  example.  But  while  they 
consider  episcopacy  as  necessary  to  the  perfection  of  the  Church, 
they  grant  that  it  is  by  no  means  necessary  to  her  existence;  and 
accordingly,  without  hesitation,  acknowledge  as  true  Churches  of 
Christ,  many  in  which  the  Episcopal  doctrine  is  rejected,  and 
Presbyterian  principles  made  the  basis  of  ecclesiastical  government. 
The  advocates  of  this  opinion,  also,  have  been  numerous  and 
respectable,  both  among  the  clerical  and  lay  members  of  the 
Episcopal  Churches  in  England,  and  the  United  States.  In  this 
list  appear  the  venerable  names  of  Bishop  Hall,  Bishop  Downham, 
Bishop  Bancroft,  Bishop  Andrews,  Archbishop  Usher,  Bishop 
Forbes,  the  learned  Chittingworth,  Archbishop  Wake,  Bishop 
Hoadly,  and  many  more,  whose  declarations  on  the  subject  will 
be  more  particularly  detailed  in  another  place. 

A  third  class  go  much  beyond  either  of  the  former.  While  they 
grant  that  God  has  left  men  at  liberty  to  modify  every  other  kind 
of  government  according  to  circumstances,  they  contend  that  one 
form  of  government  for  the  Church  is  unalterably  fixed  by  divine 
appointment ;  that  this  form  is  Episcopal ;  that  it  is  absolutely 
essential  to  the  existence  of  the  Church ;  that,  of  course,  wherever 
it  is  wanting,  there  is  no  church,  no  regular  ministry,  no  valid 
ordinances ;  and  that  all  who  are  united  with  religious  societies, 
not  conforming  to  this  order,  are  "  aliens  from  Christ,"  "  out  of 
the  appointed  road  to  heaven,"  and  have  no  hope  but  in  the 
"  uncovenanted  mercies  of  God." 

It  is  -confidently  believed  that  the  two  former  classes  taken 
together,  embrace  at  least  nineteen  parts  out  of  twenty  of  all  the 
Episcopalians  in  Great  Britain  and  the  United  States  ;  while,  so 
far  as  can  be  learned  from  the  most  respectable  writings,  and 
other  authentic  sources  of  information,  it  is  only  the  small  remaining 
proportion  who  hold  the  extravagant  opinions  assigned  to  the  third 
and  last  of  these  classes. 

Against  these  exorbitant  claims  there  is,  prior  to  all  inquiry  into 
their  evidence,  a  strong  general  presumption,  for  the  following 
reasons : 

First — It  is  placing  a  point  of  external  order  on  a  par  with  the 
essence  of  religion.  I  readily  grant,  that  every  observance  which 
the  great  Head  of  the  Church  enjoins  by  express  precept,  is  indis- 
pensably binding.  But  it  is  certainly  contrary  to  the  genius  of  the 


8  LETTER  T. 

Gospel  dispensation,  which  is  pre-eminently  distinguished  from  the 
Mosaic  economy  by  its  simplicity  and  spirituality,  to  place  forms 
of  outward  order  among  those  things  which  are  essential  to  the 
very  existence  of  the  Church.  We  know  from  scripture,  that  the 
visible  form  of  the  Church  has  been  repeatedly  altered,  without 
affecting  her  essence. 

Secondly — Against  this  doctrine  there  is  another  ground  of 
presumption ;  because  it  represents  the  rite  of  ordination  as  of 
superior  importance  to  the  whole  system  of  divine  truth  and 
ordinances,  which  it  is  the  duty  of  Christian  ministers  to  dispense. 
According  to  this  doctrine,  Presbyters  are  fully  authorized  to 
preach  that  Gospel  which  is  the  power  of  God  unto  salvation  to 
every  one  that  believeth ;  to  admit  members  into  the  Church  by 
baptism  ;  to  administer  the  Lord's  supper ;  and,  in  short,  to  engage 
in  all  those  ministrations  which  are  necessary  to  edify  the  body 
of  Christ :  but  to  the  regular  introduction  of  a  minister  into  office, 
by  the  imposition  of  hands,  they  are  not  competent.  Is  not  this, 
in  other  words,  maintaining,  that  the  Gospel  is  inferior  to  its 
ministers ;  that  the  sacraments  are  less  solemn  and  elevated 
ordinances  than  a  rite,  which  all  Protestants  allow  not  to  be  a 
sacrament ;  that  the  dispensation  of  God's  truth  is  a  less  dignified 
function,  than  selecting  and  setting  apart  a  servant  of  the  truth  ; 
that  the  means  are  more  important  than  the  end?  If  so,  then  every 
man  of  sound  mind  will  pronounce,  that,  against  such  a  doctrine, 
there  is,  antecedent  to  all  inquiry,  a  reasonable  and  strong 
presumption. 

Thirdly — If  it  be  admitted,  that  there  are  no  true  ministers  but 
those  who  are  episcopally  ordained  ;  and  that  none  are  in  commu- 
nion with  Christ,  excepting  those  who  receive  the  ordinances  of 
his  Church  from  the  hands  of  ministers  thus  ordained ;  then 
Christian  character,  and  all  the  marks  by  which  we  are  to  judge 
of  it,  will  be  placed  on  new  ground ;  ground  of  which  the  scrip- 
tures say  nothing ;  and  which  it  is  impossible  for  one  Christian  in 
a  thousand  to  investigate.  When  the  word  of  God  describes  a  real 
Christian,  it  is  in  such  language  as  this — He  is  born  of  the  Spirit ; 
he  is  a  new  creature;  old  things  are  passed  away ;  behold,  all 
things  are  become  new.  He  believes  in  Christ  and  repents  of  all 
sin.  He  crucifies  the  Jiesh  with  the  affections  and  lusts :  he  de- 
lights in  the  law  of  the  Lord  after  the  inward  man : — he  strives 


INTRODUCTORY.  9 

against  sin:  he  is  meek,  hi/mile,  full  of  merry  and  good  fruits  : 
he  loves  his  brethren  whom  he  hath  seen,  as  well  as  God  whom  he 
hath  not  seen:  he  is  zealous  of  good  works:  and  makes  it  his 
constant  study  to  imbibe  the  Spirit,  and  to  imitate  the  example  of 
the  Redeemer.  These  are  the  evidences  of  Christian  character 
which  fill  the  New  Testament,  and  which  meet  us  wherever  the 
subject  is  discussed.  According  to  this  representation,  the  only 
essential  prerequisite  to  holding  communion  with  Christ,  is  being 
united  to  him  by  a  living  faith;  that  faith  which  purifies  the  heart, 
and  is  productive  of  good  works.  But  if  the  extravagant  doctrine 
which  we  oppose  be  admitted ;  then  no  man,  however  abundantly 
he  may  possess  all  these  characteristics,  can  be  in  communion  with 
Christ,  unless  he  is  also  in  communion  with  the  Episcopal  Church. 
That  is,  his  claim  to  the  Christian  character  cannot  be  established 
by  exhibiting  a  holy  temper  and  life ;  but  depends  on  his  being  in 
the  line  of  a  certain  ecclesiastical  descent.  In  other  words,  the 
inquiry  whether  he  is  in  covenant  with  Christ,  is  not  to  be  an- 
swered by  evidences  of  personal  sanctification ;  but  resolves  itself 
into  a  question  of  clerical  genealogy,  which  few  Christians  in  the 
world  are  capable  of  examining,  and  which  no  mortal  can  certainly 
establish.  There  is  no  possibility  of  avoiding  this  conclusion  on 
the  principle  assumed.  And  I  appeal  to  you,  my  brethren,  whether 
a  principle  which  involves  such  consequences,  has  not  strong  pre- 
sumption against  it. 

Fourthly — If  the  doctrine  in  question  be  admitted,  then  we  vir- 
tually pronounce  nine-tenths  of  the  whole  Protestant  world  to  be 
in  a  state  of  excommunication  from  Christ.  I  know  it  has  been 
often  said,  by  zealous  writers  on  this  subject,  that  the  great  body 
of  the  Protestant  Churches  are  Episcopal;  and  that  those  who 
adopt  the  Presbyterian  government  make  but  a  very  small  portion 
of  the  whole  number.  But  I  need  not  tell  those  who  are  acquainted 
with  the  history  of  the  Church  since  the  reformation,  and  with  the 
present  state  of  the  Christian  world,  that  this  representation  is 
wholly  incorrect.  The  very  reverse  is  true  ;  as  I  shall  more  fully 
show  in  a  subsequent  letter.  Are  we  then  prepared  to  adopt  a 
principle  which  cuts  off  so  large  a  portion  of  the  Protestant  world 
from  the  visible  Church,  and  represents  it  as  in  a  state  in  some 
respects  worse  than  that  of  the  heathen  ?  It  is  to  be  presumed  that 
every  considerate  man  will  require  the  most  pointed  evidence  of 
B 


10  LETTER  I. 

divine  warrant,  before  he  admits  a  principle  so  tremendous  in  its 
consequences. 

It  is  not  asserted  that  these  considerations  prove  the  extravagant 
episcopal  doctrine  from  which  they  flow  to  be  false.  A  doctrine 
may  be  unpalatable,  and  yet  true.  Whatever  is  plainly  revealed 
in  scripture,  we  are  to  receive  without  any  regard  to  consequences. 
But  when  a  principle  is  repugnant  to  reason,  contradicts  the  analo- 
gy of  faith,  and  involves  consequences  deeply  wounding  to  the 
bosom  of  charity,  we  may  safely  pronounce  that  there  is  a  pre- 
sumption against  it,  antecedent  to  all  inquiry;  and  that  before  we 
embrace  such  a  principle,  the  evidence  of  its  divine  warrant  ought 
to  be  more  than  commonly  clear  and  decisive. 

With  the  great  body  of  Episcopalians  in  this  country,  and 
elsewhere,  it  is  extremely  easy  to  live  on  the  most  friendly  terms. 
Though  attached  to  the  peculiarities  of  their  own  denomination, 
they  extend  the  language  and  the  spirit  of  charity  to  other  Churches. 
We,  of  course,  think  them  in  error,  because  we  are  persuaded 
that  Episcopacy,  in  the  form  for  which  they  contend,  is  an  inno- 
vation. Yet  as  long  as  they  keep  within  the  bounds  of  that  liberal 
preference  and  zeal  for  their  own  forms,  both  of  government  and 
worship,  which  every  man  ought  to  cherish  for  the  Church  with 
which  he  connects  himself,  we  must  approve  of  their  sincerity, 
while  we  cannot  unite  with  them  in  opinion.  But  with  those  (and 
and  we  have  reason  to  be  thankful  that  the  number  is  very  small) 
who  make  exclusive  claims,  of  a  nature  nearly  allied  to  the  doc- 
trine of  Popish  infallibility;  who  declare  that  their  own  Church 
and  the  Roman  Catholic,  are  the  only  Churches  of  Christ  among 
us  ;  who  embrace  every  opportunity  of  denouncing  all  other  minis- 
ters, as  presumptuous  intruders  into  the  sacred  office,  their  minis- 
trations a  nullity,  and  those  who  attend  on  them  as  aliens  from  the 
covenant  of  grace ;  with  these  it  is  not  so  easy  to  live  in  that 
harmonious  and  affectionate  intercourse  which  is  highly  desirable 
among  Christians  of  different  denominations.  But  even  toward 
these,  it  is  your  duty  to  cultivate  a  spirit  of  forbearance  and 
charity ;  and  while  you  are  careful  to  arm  yourselves  with  the 
means  of  defence  against  their  attacks,  remember  that  you  are 
bound  to  make  allowance  for  their  prejudices,  to  forgive  their 
uncharitableness,  and  to  pity  their  delusion.  Among  depraved 
and  erring  mortals,  differences  of  opinion  will  ever  exist.  The 


INTRODUCTORY.  1 1 

most  pious  and  exemplary  Christians  cannot  always  agree,  espe- 
cially on  subjects  of  minor  importance  connected  with  religion. 
Make  it  your  study,  then,  to  be  unanimous  in  affection  towards 
Christians  of  every  name,  however  you  may  be  compelled  to 
differ  from  many  of  them  in  opinion.  Never  forget,  however 
others  may  act  as  if  they  forgot,  that  all  real  believers  are  one 
body  in  Christy  and  every  one  members  one  of  another.  It  is  my 
earnest  wish  that  this  sentiment  may  be  deeply  impressed  on  my 
own  heart  while  I  write,  and  on  yours  while  you  read.  For 
though,  with  respect  to  the  subject  on  which  I  am  about  to  address 
you,  I  am  fully  persuaded  in  my  own  mind;  and  though  I  confi- 
dently believe  that  our  views  of  the  Christian  ministry  are  not 
only  just,  but  also  highly  important  in  their  practical  influence ; 
yet  I  have  no  doubt  that  many  who  differ  on  subjects  of  this 
nature,  are  followers  of  the  same  master,  are  building  on  the  same 
foundation,  and  will  finally  dwell  together  in  that  world  of  perfect 
love,  where  men  shall  come  from  the  east,  and  from  the  west, 
and  from  the  north,  and  from  the  south,  and  shall  sit  down  with 
Abraham,  and  Isaac,  and  Jacob,  in  the  kingdom  of  our  Father. 
You  will,  perhaps,  ask  me,  whether  those  who  sincerely  hold  the 
high-toned  Episcopal  notions  which  have  been  mentioned,  can  be 
reasonably  blamed  for  endeavouring  to  propagate  them  ?  Nay, 
whether  it  is  not  as  much  their  duty  as  their  right  to  do  so,  while 
they  entertain  these  convictions  ?  I  answer,  such  persons  are  to  be 
viewed  in  the  same  light  with  those  who  conscientiously  believe 
(and  no  doubt  there  are  many  such)  that  transubstantiation  is  a 
doctrine  of  scripture;  that  the  Pope  is  infallible  ;  that  images  are 
a  great  help  to  devotion  ;  and  that  there  is  no  salvation  out  of  the 
pale  of  the  Church  of  Home.  Persons  who  hold  these  opinions  are 
not  to  be  blamed  for  wishing  to  disseminate  doctrines  which  they 
regard  as  true  and  important ;  but  they  are  to  be  both  blamed  and 
pitied  for  believing  them,  when  the  means  of  gaining  more  correct 
views  are  within  their  reach;  for  setting  up  a  standard  of  duty  and  of 
Christian  character  which  the  Saviour  never  knew  ;  and  teaching 
for  doctrines  the  commandments  of  men.  Paul,  when  he  was 
persecuting  the  Church  of  Christ  and  wasting  it,  verily  thought 
within  himself  ihat  he  was  doing  God  service;  yet  we  have  the 
best  authority  for  saying  that  this  miserable  mistake  did  not  render 
him  blameless  in  the  sight  of  heaven. 


12  LETTER  I. 

The  truth  is,  every  sect  of  Christians  must  be  considered  as 
having  a  right  to  maintain  and  propagate  those  opinions,  which 
they  sincerely  believe  to  be  true;  and  others  have  an  equal  right, 
and  are  equally  bound,  when  they  see  errors  propagated,  to 
examine,  and,  with  a  suitable  spirit,  to  expose  and  refute  them. 
Nor  are  discussions  of  this  kind  by  any  means  to  be  regarded  as 
useless.  When  conducted  with  the  meekness  and  benevolence  of 
the  Gospel,  they  are  productive  of  various  substantial  benefits. 
Many  shall  run  to  and  fro,  and  knowledge  shall  be  increased. 

Had  any  of  the  numerous  works  which  have  been  published  on 
the  subject  of  these  letters  been  in  general  circulation  among  you, 
or  had  it  been  easy  to  put  them  in  circulation,  I  should  have  thought 
it  unnecessary  to  ask  your  attention  to  the  following  sheets.  But 
as  most  of  those  works  are  too  voluminous  to  be  generally  read; 
as  several  of  the  best  of  them  are  in  a  language  not  generally 
understood  ;  as  many  of  them  contain  much  matter  inapplicable  to 
the  state  of  our  country  ;  and  as  others,  being  intended  to  answer 
particular  purposes,  are  too  confined  in  their  views,  I  have  thought 
myself  justifiable  in  attempting  to  lay  the  subject  before  you  in  a 
form  somewhat  different  from  that  of  any  work  with  which  I  am 
acquainted.  And  in  doing  this,  I  am  not  without  the  hope,  that 
you  will  be  disposed  to  receive  with  some  partiality,  and  to  peruse 
with  a  kind  interest,  an  address  from  one  who  has  laboured 
sincerely }  though  with  many  infirmities,  for  many  years,  to  promote 
your  spiritual  interest,  and  who  has  no  greater  pleasure  than  to 
see  you  walking  in  the  truth. 

To  treat  the  question  considered  in  the  following  pages,  in  all 
its  extent,  and  even  to  present  the  principal  arguments  with  a 
fulness  desirable  to  some  readers,  would  be  to  fill  several  volumes. 
In  contracting  the  discussion,  therefore,  within  the  limits  of  this 
little  manual,  I  have  laid  myself  under  the  necessity  of  being  every 
where  extremely  brief,  and  of  totally  excluding  many  topics,  both 
of  argument  and  illustration,  which  might  be  profitably  introduced. 
But,  amidst  this  unavoidable  brevity,  I  hope  you  will  do  me  the 
justice  to  believe,  that  no  assertion  will  be  made  but  what  I 
conscientiously  consider  as  susceptible  of  the  most  abundant  proof; 
that  no  arguments  will  be  stated,  but  those  which  I  believe  to  have 
stood  immovably  solid,  after  every  attempt  to  answer  them  ;  that 
no  authorities  will  be  produced,  but  those  which  are  generally 
admitted  to  be  of  the  most  respectable  character;  and,  in  a  word, 


INTRODUCTORY.  13 

that  the  whole  subject  will  be  presented  as  fairly  and  impartially 
as  I  am  able  to  present  it.  With  respect  to  authorities,  indeed,  I 
have  endeavoured,  in  all  cases  in  which  I  could  obtain  access  to 
them,  to  quote  the  most  distinguished  Episcopal  writers  themselves. 
The  concessions  of  learned  and  wary  adversaries,  in  favour  of  our 
doctrines,  carry  with  them  peculiar  weight. 

But  before  I  conclude  this  introductory  letter,  suffer  me,  my  dear 
brethren,  to  remind  you,^that  the  names  and  powers  of  Christ's 
ministers,  and  the  form  of  government  adopted  in  his  Church, 
though  objects  of  inquiry,  on  various  accounts,  highly  interesting, 
are  yet  to  be  numbered  among  the  externals  of  religion.  You  may 
entertain  perfectly  correct  opinions  on  these  subjects,  and  yet,  after 
all,  have  no  just  claim  to  the  Christian  character.     You  may  be 
connected  with  the  purest  Church  on  earth,  and  may  receive  all  its 
ordinances,  from  the  hands  of  the  most  regular  and  valid  ministry 
in  Christendom,  and  yet  be  aliens  from  the  commonwealth  of 
Israel,  and  strangers  to  the  covenant  of  promise.     It  is  true,  the 
externals  of  religion  have  a  closer  connexion  with  its  spirit  and 
power  than  is  commonly  imagined  ;  but  still  they  are  externals 
only,  and  must  not  be  suffered  to  usurp  a  disproportioned  share  of 
our  regard.     The  scriptures  speak  to  us  frequently  respecting  the 
outward  organization  of  the  Church ;  but  they  speak  to  us  much 
more  frequently  ;  they  dwell  with  much  more  fervent  and  solemn 
emphasis,  on  that  faith,  which  unites  the  soul  to  Jesus  Christ ;  that 
repentance  which  is  unto  life ;  and  that  holiness  of  temper  and 
of  practice,  without  which  no  man  can  see  the  Lord.     Let  me 
beseech  you,  then,  to  remember,  in  every  stage  of  this  discussion, 
that,  in  Christ  Jesus  neither  circumcision  availeth  any  thing,  nor 
uncircumcision,  but  a  new  creature  ;  and  that,  while  one  saith,  I 
am  of  Paul,  and  another,  I  am  of  Apollos,  and  another,  I  am  of 
Cephas,  unless  we  are  all  of  Christ,  united  to  him  by  a  vital  faith, 
and  built  upon  him  as  the  only  foundation  of  our  hope,  we  cannot 
see  the  kingdom  of  God.     "  Every   believer  in  Jesus,"  says  an 
eminent  Episcopalian, "  who  is  a  partaker  of  the  grace  of  God  in 
"  truth,  is  a  member  of  the  true  Church,  to  whatever  particular 
"  denomination  of  Christians  he  may  belong  ;  without  this,  Popes, 
"  Bishops,  Presbyters,  Pastors,  or  Deacons,  are  but  the  limbs  of 
"  Antichrist  and   of  the  Synagogue  of  Satan  ;  and  belong  to  no 
"  Church  which  the  great  Shepherd  and  Bishop  of  souls  will 
"  acknowledge  for  his  own." 


LETTER  II. 

TESTIMONY  OF  SCRIPTURE. 

CHRISTIAN  BRETHREN, 

IN  all  disputes  relating  either  to  the  faith  or  the  practice  of 
Christians,  the  first,  and  the  grand  question  is,  What  saith  the 
Scripture  ?  This  is  the  ultimate  and  the  only  infallible  standard. 
Whatever  is  not  found  in  the  Bible  cannot  be  considered,  in  any 
sense,  as  essential  either  to  the  doctrine  or  the  order  of  the  Church. 
This  maxim  is  especially  applicable  to  the  subject  now  under 
discussion.  As  the  Christian  ministry  is  an  office  deriving  its 
existence  and  its  authority  solely  from  Jesus  Christ,  the  King  and 
Head  of  his  Church,  it  is  obvious  that  his  Word  is  the  only  rule 
by  which  any  claims  to  this  office  can  properly  be  tried,  and  the 
duties  and  powers  of  those  who  bear  it,  ascertained.  Every  other 
standard  is  unauthorized,  variable,  and  uncertain.  On  the  word  of 
God  alone  can  we  with  confidence  arid  safety  rely  for  direction  in 
things  relating  to  his  spiritual  kingdom.  The  declarations  of  two 
eminent  Episcopal  writers  on  this  subject  are  just  and  weighty. 
"  The  Scripture,"  says  Dr.  Sherlock,  "  is  all  of  a  piece  ;  every 
"  part  of  it  agrees  with  the  rest.  The  Fathers  many  times  contra- 
"  diet  themselves  and  each  other."  In  the  same  strain  speaks  the 
celebrated  Chillingtoorth. — "  I,  for  my  part,  after  a  long,  and  (as  t 
"  verily  hope  and  believej  impartial  search  of  the  true  way  to 
«  eternal  happiness,  do  profess  plainly,  that  I  cannot  find  any 
"  rest  for  the  sole  of  my  feet,  but  upon  this  rock  only,  viz.  the 
u  Scripture.  I  see  plainly,  and  with  my  own  eyes,  councils  against 
"  councils,  some  Fathers  against  others,  the  same  Fathers  against 
"  themselves,  a  consent  of  Fathers  of  one  age  against  a  consent  of 
"  Fathers  of  another  age,  and  the  Church  of  one  age  against  the 
"  Church  of  another  age." — But  it  is  needless  to  multiply  reason- 
ings or  authorities  on  this  subject.  The  sufficiency  and  infallibility 
of  the  Scriptures  alone,  as  a  rule  of  faith  and  practice,  was  assumed 


TESTIMONY  OF  SCRIPTURE.         15 

as  the  grand  principle  of  the  Reformation  from  Popery,  and  is 
acknowledged  to  be  the  foundation  of  the  Protestant  cause. 

Let  us,  then,  examine  what  the  Scriptures  say  on  the  point  in 
dispute.  And  here  it  is  proper  to  premise,  that  whoever  expects 
to  find  any  formal  or  explicit  decisions  on  this  subject,  delivered 
by  Christ  or  his  apostles,  will  be  disappointed.  It  is  true,  the  dis- 
courses of  the  Saviour,  and  the  writings  of  those  who  were  inspired 
with  the  knowledge  of  his  will,  contain  many  observations  and 
instructions  concerning  the  Christian  ministry  :  but  they  are 
chiefly  employed  in  prescribing  the  qualifications,  and  urging  the 
duties  of  those  who  serve  God  in  the  Gospel  of  his  Son,  rather 
than  in  defining  their  titles,  in  settling  questions  of  rank  and  pre- 
cedence among  them,  or  in  guarding  the  immunities  and  honours 
of  their  office.  The  necessity  of  knowledge,  piety,  zeal,  diligence, 
self-denial,  meekness,  patience,  fortitude,  and  eminent  holiness,  in 
ministers  of  the  Gospel,  is  urged  with  a  frequency,  a  minuteness, 
and  a  force,  which  evince  that,  in  the  estimation  of  infinite  Wisdom, 
they  are  regarded  as  of  primary  importance.  While  questions  re- 
specting priority,  and  grades,  and  privileges,  are  never  once  for- 
mally discussed,  only  occasionally  alluded  to,  and  then  in  a  man- 
ner so  indistinct  and  cursory  as  to  show  that  they  were  considered 
as  objects  of  inferior  moment.  What  are  we  to  infer  from  this 
want  of  absolute  explicitness  in  the  sacred  writings?  Not  that 
Church  Government  is  a  matter  of  small  importance.  It  would  be 
easy  to  prove  that  this  is  a  very  mischievous  extreme.  But  we 
certainly  must  infer,  that  the  Spirit  of  God  does  not  teach  us  to  lay 
so  much  stress  on  points  of  ecclesiastical  order,  as  on  those  pre- 
cious doctrines  which  relate  immediately  to  the  Christian  charac- 
ter and  hope,  which  "  form  the  essence,  and  fill  the  volume  of  the 
sacred  records." 

But  while  the  scriptures  present  no  formal  or  explicit  decisions 
on  this  subject,  we  find  in  them  a  mode  of  expression  and  a  num- 
ber of  facts,  from  which  we  may,  without  difficulty,  ascertain  the 
outlines  of  the  apostolic  plan  of  Church  order.  By  a  careful 
attention  to  this  language,  and  to  these  facts,  if  I  mistake  not,  it 
will  be  easy  to  show — 

That  Christ  gave  but  one  commission  for  the  office  of  the  Gos- 
pel ministry,  and  that  this  office,  of  course,  is  one. 

That  the  words  Bishop,  and  Elder,  or  Presbyter,  are  uniformly 


16  LETTER  II. 

used  in  the  New  Testament  as  convertible  titles  for  the  same 
office. 

That  the  same  character  and  powers  which  are  ascribed,  in  the 
sacred  writings,  to  Bishops,  are  also  ascribed  to  Presbyters  ;  thus 
plainly  establishing  the  identity  of  order,  as  well  as  of  name.  And 
finally, 

That  the  Christian  Church  was  organized  by  the  apostles  after 
the  model  of  the  Jewish  Synagogue,  which  was  unquestionably 
Presbyterian  in  its  form.* 

If  these  four  positions  can  be  established,  there  will  remain  no 
doubt  on  any  candid  mind  how  the  question  in  dispute  ought  to 
be  decided. 

I.  It  is  evident  that  Christ  gave  but  one  commission  for  the 
office  of  the  Gospel  ministry,  and  that  this  office,  of  course,  is  one. 

The  commission  which  our  Lord  gave  to  his  apostles,  and  in 
them  to  his  ministers  in  every  age,  is  expressed  in  the  following 
words — And  Jesus  came  and  spake  unto  them,  saying,  All  power 
is  given  unto  me  in  heaven  and  in  earth.  Go  ye,  therefore,  and 
teach  all  nations,  baptizing  them  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and 
of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost — Teaching  them  to  observe  all 
things  whatsoever  1  have  commanded  you  :  and  lo  1  am  with  you 
always,  even  unto  the  end  of  the  worldJr  Then  said  Jesus  to 
them  again,  Peace  be  unto  you :  As  my  Father  hath  sent  me,  even 
so  send  I  you.  And  when  he  had  said  this,  he  breathed  on  them, 
and  said  unto  them,  Receive  ye  the  Holy  Ghost — whosesoever  sins 
ye  remit,  they  are  remitted  unto  them,  and  whosesoever  sins  ye 
retain,  they  are  retained.^  These  passages  form  the  grand  com- 
mission under  which  all  lawful  ministers  have  acted  from  the  mo- 
ment in  which  it  was  delivered  to  the  present  time ;  and  under 
which  they  must  and  will  act  to  the  end  of  the  world. 

This  commission,  it  is  confessed  on  all  hands,  was  originally 
given  to  one  order  of  ministers  only,  viz.  the  eleven  Apostles.  The 

*  Though  the  word  Presbyterian  is  commonly  used  to  designate  those 
Churches,  which  are  governed  by  Presbyteries  and  Synods,  as  the 
Churches  of  Geneva,  Holland,  Scotland,  and  those  of  this  denomination 
in  the  United  States,-  yet  all  those  Churches  are,  in  the  leading-  sense  of 
the  word,  Presbyterian,  in  which  Presbyters  ordain,  and  are  regarded  as 
holding  the  highest  ecclesiastical  office. 

|  Matth.  xxviii.  18,  19,  20.  +  John  xx.  21,  22,  23. 


TESTIMON  Y  OF  SCRIPTURE.  1 7 

seventy  disciples  had  been  employed  on  a  temporary  service,  and 
that,  strictly  speaking,  under  the  Jewish  dispensation.  For  as  the 
Christian  Church  did  not  receive  its  distinct  constitution  till  after 
the  resurrection  of  Christ ;  as  the  Apostles  were  made  fixed  officers 
of  the  Church,  by  virtue  of  this  new  commission,  and  not  of  any 
former  appointment ;  and  as  no  such  new  commission  was  given 
to  the  seventy  disciples,  it  is  manifest  that  they  are  not  to  be 
considered  as  ministers  of  the  New  Testament  dispensation  at  all. 
The  Saviour,  then,  in  this  last  solemn  interview,  addressed  the 
eleven  only.  To  them  he  committed  the  whole  ministerial 
authority  in  his  kingdom.  The  commission,  therefore,  when  it 
was  first  delivered,  certainly  constituted  no  more  than  one  order  of 
Gospel  ministers. 

That  this  commission  embraces  the  highest  and  fullest  ecclesias- 
tical power,  that  has  been,  is,  or  can  be  possessed  by  any  of  the 
ministers  of  Christ,  all  Protestants  allow.  And  that  it  conveys  a 
right  to  preach  the  word,  to  administer  sacraments,  and  to  ordain 
other  men  to  the  work  of  the  ministry,  Episcopalians,  as  well  as 
others,  grant.  Now  this  commission  either  expired  with  the  apostles, 
to  whom  it  was  originally  delivered,  or  it  did  not.  If  it  did  expire 
with  them,  then  no  ministers  of  the  Gospel,  since  their  day,  have 
had  any  commission,  for  there  is  no  other  left  on  record.  But  if  it 
did  not  expire  with  them,  then  it  is  directed  equally  to  their 
successors  in  all  ages.  But  who  are  these  successors  ?  Demonstrably 
all  those  who  are  authorized  to  perform  those  functions  which  this 
commission  recognizes,  that  is,  to  preach,  and  to  administer  the 
sealing  ordinances  of  the  Church.  Every  minister  of  the  Gospel, 
therefore,  who  has  these  powers,  is  a  successor  of  the  apostles,  is 
authorized  by  this  commission,  and  stands  on  a  footing  of  official 
equality  with  those  to  whom  it  was  originally  delivered,  so  far  as 
their  office  was  ordinary  and  perpetual. 

It  is  remarkable,  that,  in  this  commission,  dispensing  the  Word 
of  life,  and  administering  Sacraments,  are  held  forth  as  the  most 
prominent,  important,  and  solemn  duties  of  Christian  ministers. 
The  power  of  ordaining  others  is  not  mentioned  at  all ;  and  we 
only  infer  that  it  is  included,  because  the  commission  recognizes 
the  continuance  of  the  office  and  duties  of  ministers  to  the  end  of 
the  world.  Must  we  not  infer  then,  that  all  who  have  a  right  to 
preach  and  baptise,  have  a  right,  of  course,  to  ordain  ?  Does  it 
C 


IS  LETTER  II. 

comport  with  the  spirit  of  this  commission,  to  represent  the  former 
functions,  which  are  mentioned  with  so  much  distinctness  and 
solemnity,  as  pertaining  to  the  lowest  order  in  the  Church ;  and 
the  latter,  which  is  only  included  by  inference,  as  reserved  for  a 
higher  order  ?  Those  who  are  confessed  to  have  the  most  important 
and  distinguished  powers  conveyed  by  a  commission,  must  be 
considered  as  possessing  the  whole.  What  God  hath  joined 
together,  let  not  man  put  asunder. 

There  seems  to  be  no  method  of  evading  the  force  of  this 
argument,  but  by  supposing,  that  the  ministerial  powers  conveyed 
by  this  commission,  were  afterwards  divided;  and  that,  while 
some  retained  the  whole,  others  were  invested  with  only  a  part  of 
these  powers.  In  other  words,  that  the  same  commission,  since 
the  days  of  the  apostles,  makes  some  Bishops,  clothed  with  the 
highest  powers,  and  other  Presbyters,  with  powers  of  a  subordinate 
kind.  But  does  not  this  supposition  carry  with  it  its  own  refutation  ? 
Can  one  form  of  investiture  constitute  different  orders  ?  Formal 
reasoning  cannot  be  necessary  to  set  aside  such  an  absurdity.  But 
were  the  supposition  which  has  been  stated  ever  so  legitimate  on 
the  score  of  reasoning,  it  is  altogether  unsupported  in  point  of  fact. 
Where  is  the  evidence  of  this  pretended  division  of  ministerial 
powers  ?  When  was  it  made  ?  By  whom  ?  In  what  manner  were 
the  powers  in  question  divided  ?  The  commission  itself  gives  no 
hint  of  such  a  division.  No  subsequent  passage  of  scripture 
suggests  any  thing  of  the  kind.  Nothing  that  so  much  as  seems  to 
warrant  such  a  supposition,  is  to  be  found  in  all  the  book  of  God. 
Nay,  the  contrary  most  manifestly  appears.  For  when,  after  our 
Lord's  ascension,  we  find  the  apostle  Paul,  and  other  inspired 
writers,  giving  instructions  concerning  the  ministerial  office  and 
duties,  they  always  speak  in  the  spirit  of  the  original  commission  ; 
and  represent  teaching  men  the  way  of  salvation,  edifying  the 
Church,  and  administering  the  seals  of  the  covenant,  as  the  highest 
functions  belonging  to  this  office.  These  are  ever  the  principal 
objects  to  which  their  precepts  and  exhortations  are  directed,  and 
which  they  evidently  regard  as  paramount  to  all  questions  of 
precedence  and  privilege. 

Until,  then,  the  friends  of  three  orders  in  the  Christian  ministry 
produce,  from  Scripture,  some  other  commission  than  that  which 
we  have  seen  5  or  find  some  explicit  warrant  for  a  threefold 


TESTIMONY  OF  SCRIPTURE.  19 

division  of  the  powers  which  this  one  commission  conveys,  we  are 
compelled  to  conclude,  that  our  Lord  contemplated  but  one  stand- 
ing order  of  Gospel  ministers  in  his  Church  ;  and  that  all  who  are 
empowered  to  preach  his  Word,  and  administer  his  sacraments, 
belong  to  this  order. 

II.  That  Bishops  are  not,  by  divine  right,  different  from,  or 
superior  to,  Presbyters,  is  further  evident,  because  the  terms 
Bishop  and  Presbyter  are  uniformly  used  in  the  New  Testament, 
as  convertible  titles  for  the  same  office. 

The  Greek  word  (Wjtfxotfos)  which  we  translate  Bishop,  literally 
signifies  an  Overseer.  This  word  appears  to  have  been  adopted 
by  the  apostles  from  the  Greek  translation  of  the  Old  Testament 
(generally  called  the  Septuagint)  which  was  in  common  use  among 
the  Christians  of  that  day.  In  this  celebrated  version,  the  word 
is  employed  frequently,  and  to  designate  officers  of  various  grades 
and  characters,  civil,  military,  and  ecclesiastical.  The  inspired 
writers  of  the  New  Testament,  observing  that  this  word,  as  a  title 
of  office,  was  much  in  use,  and  familiarly  understood  among  those 
who  had  the  scriptures  in  the  popular  language  in  their  hands, 
thought  proper  to  adopt  and  apply  it  to  the  officers  of  Christ's 
spiritual  kingdom. 

The  word  (ffgerfSuregos)  which  the  translators  of  the  New  Tes- 
tament render  Elder,  and  which  precisely  answers  to  the  word 
Presbyter,  literally  signifies  an  aged  person.  But  as  among  the 
Jews,  and  the  eastern  nations  generally,  persons  advanced  in  age 
were  commonly  selected  to  fill  stations  of  dignity  and  authority, 
the  word  Presbyter,  or  Elder,  became,  in  process  of  time,  an 
established  title  of  office.  The  Jews  had  rulers  called  by  this 
name,  not  only  over  their  nation,  but  also  over  every  city,  and  every 
synagogue.  To  a  Jew,  therefore,  no  term  could  be  addressed 
more  perfectly  intelligible  and  familiar.  The  apostles  finding  this 
to  be  the  case  with  most  of  those  among  whom  they  ministered, 
gave  the  name  of  Elder  to  the  pastors  and  rulers  of  the  Churches 
which  they  organized  ;  and  the  rather  because  these  pastors  were 
generally  in  fact  taken  from  among  the  more  grave  and  aged  con- 
verts to  the  Christian  faith. 

From  this  statement  it  will  appear,  that  Presbyter,  if  we  attend 
to  its  original  meaning,  is  a  word  of  more  honourable  import  than 
Bishop.  Presbyter  is  expressive  of  authority,  Bishop  of  duty. 


20  LETTER  II. 

The  former  implies  the  dignity  and  power  of  a  ruler  ;  the  latter 
conveys  the  idea  of  work,  or  of  executing  a  prescribed  task.  But 
whatever  may  be  the  comparative  degrees  of  honour  expressed  by 
these  terms,  it  is  certain  that  they  are  uniformly  employed,  in  the 
New  Testament,  as  convertible  titles  for  the  same  office.  An 
attentive  consideration  of  the  following  passages  will  establish  this 
position  beyond  all  doubt. 

The  first  which  I  shall  quote  is  found  in  Acts  xx.  17.  28.  And 
from  Miletus  he  sent  to  Ephesus,  and  called  the  Elders  (or  Pres- 
byters, ^rftvrsgoitf)  of  the  Church.  And  when  they  were  come  to 
him,  he  said  unto  them,  Take  heed  unto  yourselves  and  to  all  the 
flock  over  which  the  Holy  Ghost  hath  made  you  overseers  (or 
Bishops,  erttfaotfovs)  to  feed  the  Church  of  God  which  he  hath 
purchased  with  his  own  blood. — In  this  passage  it  is  evident,  that 
the  same  persons  who,  in  the  17th  verse  are  styled  Elders  or  Pres- 
byters, are  in  the  28th  called  Bishops.  This,  indeed,  is  so  incon- 
testible,  that  the  most  zealous  Episcopalian,  so  far  as  I  know,  has 
never  called  it  in  question.  It  is  further  observable,  that  in  the 
city  of  Ephesus  there  were  a  number  of  Bishops,  who  governed 
the  Church  in  that  city  as  co-ordinate  rulers,  or  in  common  coun- 
cil. This  is  wholly  irreconcilable  with  the  principles  of  modern 
episcopacy;  but  perfectly  coincides  with  the  Presbyterian  doc- 
trine, that  scriptural  Bishops  are  the  Pastors  of  single  congrega- 
tions.* 

*  It  has  been  much  controverted  whether,  in  each  of  the  larger  cities, 
in  which  Christianity  was  first  planted,  such  as  Jerusalem,  Ephesus,  An- 
tioch,  Corinth,  &c.  there  was  more  than  one  congregation  of  Christians . 
In  other  words,  whether  by  the  Church  at  Ephesus  we  are  to  understand, 
a  single  congregation,  or  several  separate  societies,  as  the  Presbyterian 
Church  in  New-York  comprehends  several  congregations ?— From  the 
multitudes  that  are  said  to  have  believed  in  those  cities,  it  is  probable 
there  were  several  thousands  of  Christians  in  each  of  them?  and  as  the 
places  in  which  they  assembled  for  public  worship  were  small,  perhaps 
most  of  them  apartments  in  private  dwellings,  we  cannot  suppose  that 
they  were  all  able  to  assemble  at  the  same  time  and  place.  The  expe- 
dient, therefore,  of  dividing  themselves  into  small  associations,  would 
seem  natural,  and  even  unavoidable.  We  know  that  in  the  days  of 
the  apostles  there  were  a  number  of  Bishops  in  each  of  the  cities  of 
Ephesus  and  Philippi.  It  is  most  probable  that  these  were  pastors  of 
so  many  different  congregations.  We  are  by  no  means  to  suppose, 


TESTIMONY  OF  SCRIPTURE.  21 

The  next  passage  to  our  purpose  is  the  address  of  the  apostle 
Paul  to  the  Philippians,  in  the  introduction  of  his  Epistle  to  that 
Church.  Paul  and  Timotheus,  the  servants  of  Jesus  Christ,  to 
all  the  saints  in  Christ  Jesus,  which  are  at  Philippi}  with  the 
Hishops  and  Deacons.  Here,  as  well,  as  in  the  case  of  Ephesus, 
just  mentioned,  we  find  the  inspired  writer  speaking  of  a  number 
of  Bishops  in  a  single  city.  It  is  true,  Dr.  Hammond,  an  eminent 
Episcopal  writer,  to  avoid  the  force  of  this  fact,  so  unfriendly  to 
modern  Episcopacy,  would  persuade  us  that  Philippi  was  a  Me- 
tropolitan city,  and  that  the  Bishops  here  spoken  of,  did  not  all 
belong  to  that  city,  but  also  included  those  of  the  neighbouring 
cities,  under  that  Metropolis.  But  this  supposition  is  not  in  the 
least  degree  countenanced  by  the  apostle's  language ;  the  plain, 
unsophisticated  meaning  of  which  evidently  refers  us  to  the 
Bishops  and  Deacons  which  were  at  Philippi,  and  there  only. 
Besides,  Dr.  Whitby,  a  later,  and  equally  eminent  Episcopal 
divine,  assures  us,  that  Philippi  was  not,  at  that  time,  a  Metropoli- 
tan city,  but  under  Thessalonica,  which  was  the  Metropolis  of  all 
Macedonia.  Dr.  Stillingjleet  has  also  clearly  shown,  that  there 
are  no  traces  to  be  found  within  the  first  six  centuries,  of  the 
Church  at  Philippi  being  a  Metropolitan  Church.  Dr.  Maurice, 
another  zealous  and  able  writer  in  favour  of  diocesan  episcopacy 
goes  further.  He  acknowledges  that  Dr.  Hammond  stands  alone, 
in  the  solution  of  the  difficulty  above  mentioned  ;  that  he  cannot 
undertake  to  defend  it ;  and  that  "  he  could  never  find  sufficient 
"  reason  to  believe  these  Bishops  any  other  than  Presbyters,  as 
"  the  generality  of  the  Fathers,  and  of  the  Church  of  England 
"  have  done."* 

The  third  passage  to  be  adduced  is  in  Titus  i.  It  is  as  follows. 
For  this  cause  I  left  thee  in  Crete,  that  thou  shouldst  set  in  order 
the  things  that  are  wanting,  and  ordain  Elders,  (Presbyters)  in 
every  city,  as  I  had  appointed  thee.  If  any  be  blameless,  the 

however,  that  in  those  days  of  persecution  and  peril,  when  Christians 
were  almost  afraid  of  appearing1  in  public,  and  when  their  meetings  were 
often  held  under  the  cover  of  midnight,  that  their  division  into  parishes, 
or  even  into  congregations,  was  as  regular  and  as  precisely  defined  as  at 
present;  or  that  the  same  principles  of  reasoning1  in  all  cases  apply  to 
those  small  house-churches,  as  to  modern  congregations. 
*  Defence  of  Diocesan  Episcopacy,  p.  29. 


22  LETTER  II. 

husband  of  one  wife,  having  faithful  children,  not  accused  of  riot, 
or  unruly.  For  a  Bishop  must  be  blameless,  as  the  steward  of  God; 
not  self-willed,  not  soon  angry,  not  given  to  wine,  no  striker, 
not  given  to  Jilthy  lucre,  &c.  Here  the  apostle,  in  directing 
Titus  to  ordain  Elders,  enjoins  upon  him  to  choose  those  officers 
from  among  the  most  temperate,  blameless,  and  faithful  believers ; 
and  the  reason  he  assigns  for  this  injunction  is,  that  a  Bishop  must 
be  blameless  ;  evidently  meaning,  that  Presbyter  and  Bishop  are 
the  same  office.  On  any  otiW  construction,  the  different  parts  of 
the  address  are  unconnected,  and  the  whole  destitute  of  force.  But 
these  are  charges  which  no  man  who  is  conversant  with  the  writ- 
ings of  Paul,  would  ever  think  of  bringing  against  them. 

This  passage  also  establishes  another  point.  It  not  only  shows 
that  the  Elders  here  to  be  ordained,  were  considered  and 
denominated  Bishops,  thereby  proving  the  identity  of  the  office 
designated  by  these  names;  but  it  likewise  proves,  beyond 
controversy,  that,  in  apostolic  times,  it  was  customary  to  have  a 
plurality  of  these  Bishops  in  a  single  city.  We  have  before  seen 
that  there  were  a  number  of  Bishops  in  the  city  of  Ephesus,  and  a 
number  more  in  the  city  of  Philippi :  but  in  the  passage  before  us 
we  find  Titus  directed  to  ordain  a  plurality  of  them  in  every  city. 
This  perfectly  agrees  with  the  Presbyterian  doctrine,  that  scriptural 
Bishops  were  the  pastors  of  single  congregations,  or  Presbyters, 
invested,  either  separately  or  conjointly,  as  the  case  might  be,  with 
pastoral  charges ;  but  it  is  impossible  to  reconcile  it  with  the 
modern  notions  of  diocesan  episcopacy. 

There  is  one  more  passage,  equally  conclusive  in  this  argument. 
It  is  that  which  is  found  in  1  Peter  v.  1,  2.  The  Elders  (or 
Presbyters^)  which  are  among  you,  I  exhort,  who  am  also  an  Elder, 
and  a  witness  of  the  sufferings  of  Christ,  and  also  a  partaker  of 
the  glory  that  shall  be  revealed.  Feed  the  flock  of  God  which  is 
among  you,  taking  the  oversight  thereof  (etfuJwifovvrss,  that  is, 
exercising  the  office,  or  performing  the  duties  of  Bishops  over  them), 
not  by  restraint,  but  willingly  ;  not  for  filthy  lucre,  but  of  a 
ready  mind.  The  construction  of  this  passage  is  obvious.  It 
expressly  represents  Presbyters  as  Bishops  of  the  flock,  and 
solemnly  exhorts  them  to  exercise  the  powers,  and  perform  the 
duties  of  this  office. 

In  short,  the  title  of  Bishop,  as  applied  to  ministers  of  the  Gospel, 


TESTIMONY  OF  SCRIPTURE.  23 

occurs  only  four  times  in  the  New  Testament:  in  three  of  these 
cases,  there  is  complete  proof  that  it  is  given  to  those  who  are  styled 
Presbyters  ;  and  in  the  fourth  case,  there  is  strong  presumption 
that  it  is  applied  in  the  same  manner.  On  the  other  hand,  the 
Apostle  Peter,  as  we  have  just  seen,  in  addressing  an  authoritative 
exhortation  to  other  ministers,  calls  himself  a  Presbyter.  The  same 
is  done  by  the  Apostle  John,  in  the  beginning  of  his  second  and 
third  epistles — The  Elder  (Presbyter^)  unto  the  well  beloved  Gains 
— The  Elder  unto  the  Elect  Lady,  &c.  Could  more  complete 
evidence  be  desired,  that  both  these  titles  belonged  equally,  in  the 
days  of  the  apostles,  to  the  same  office  ? 

But  it  is  not  necessary  further  to  pursue  the  proof  that  these 
names  are  indiscriminately  applied  in  scripture  to  the  same  office. 
This  is  freely  and  unanimously  acknowledged  by  the  most  respecta- 
ble Episcopal  writers.  In  proof  of  this  acknowledgment,  it  were 
easy  to  multiply  quotations.  A  single  authority  shall  suffice.  Dr. 
Whitby  confesses,  that  "  both  the  Greek  and  Latin  Fathers  do, 
"  with  one  consent,  declare,  that  Bishops  were  called  Presbyters, 
"  and  Presbyters  Bishops,  in  apostolic  times,  the  names  being  then 
"common."  Notes  on  Philip,  i.  1. 

I  know  that  many  advocates  for  diocesan  episcopacy  have 
affected  to  make  light  of  the  argument,  in  favour  of  the  parity  of 
of  ministers,  drawn  from  the  indiscriminate  application  of  these 
scriptural  names.  Indeed,  some  of  them  have  attempted,  by  florid 
declamation  and  ludicrous  comparisons,  to  turn  the  whole  into 
ridicule.  This  is  an  extremely  convenient  method  of  evading  the 
force  of  an  argument  which  cannot  be  fairly  answered.  But  to 
evade  an  argument  is  not  to  refute  it.  Besides,  have  those  who 
reject  all  reasoning  drawn  from  the  application  of  scriptural  names, 
considered  whither  this  principle  will  lead  them?  Have  they 
reflected  how  large  a  portion  of  those  weapons  with  which  they 
defend  the  Divine  character,  and  the  vicarious  sacrifice  of  the 
blessed  Redeemer,  against  the  attacks  of  Socinians,  and  other 
heretics,  are  necessarily  surrendered,  if  the  names  and  titles  of 
scripture  are  so  vague  and  indecisive  as  they  would,  in  this  case, 
represent  them  ?  Will  they  venture  to  charge  the  great  Head  of 
the  Church,  who  dictated  the  scriptures,  with  addressing  his  people 
in  a  language  altogether  indistinct,  and  calculated  to  mislead  them  ; 
and  that  too  on  a  subject  which,  they  tell  us,  lies  at  the  foundation 


24  LETTER  II. 

not  merely  of  the  welfare,  but  of  the  very  existence  of  the  Church  ? 
Surely  these  consequences  cannot  have  been  considered.  The 
argument,  then,  drawn  from  the  indiscriminate  application  of  the 
names  Bishop  and  Presbyter  to  the  same  persons,  is  conclusive. 
It  was  pronounced  to  be  so,  by  the  venerable  and  learned  Jerome, 
more  than  1400  years  ago;  and  his  judgment  has  been  adopted 
and  supported  by  some  of  the  greatest  and  best  divines  that  have 
adorned  the  Christian  Church,  from  that  period  down  to  the 
present  day. 

But  we  have  something  more  to  produce  in  support  of  our  sys- 
tem, than  the  indiscriminate  application  of  the  names  in  question 
to  one  order  of  ministers.  We  can  show, 

III.  That  the  same  character,  duties,  and  powers,  which  are 
ascribed  in  the  sacred  writings  to  Jlishops,  are  also  ascribed  to 
Presbyters  ;  thereby  plainly  establishing  their  identity  of  order  as 
well  as  of  name. 

Had  Bishops  been  constituted,  by  the  great  Head  of  the  Church, 
an  order  of  ministers  different  from  Presbyters,  and  superior  to 
them,  we  might  confidently  expect  to  find  a  different  commission 
given ;  different  qualifications  required  ;  and  a  different  sphere  of 
duty  assigned.  But  nothing  of  all  this  appears.  On  the  contrary, 
the  inspired  writers,  when  they  speak  of  ministers  of  the  Gospel, 
by  which  ever  of  these  names  they  are  distinguished,  give  the 
same  description  of  their  character;  represent  the  same  gifts 
and  graces  as  necessary  for  them ;  enjoin  upon  them  the  sarae 
duties  ;  and,  in  a  word,  exhibit  them  as  called  to  the  same  work, 
and  as  bearing  the  same  office.  To  prove  this,  let  us  attend  to 
some  of  the  principal  powers  vested  in  Christian  ministers,  and 
see  whether  the  scriptures  do  not  ascribe  them  equally  to  Presby- 
ters and  Bishops. 

I.  That  Presbyters  had,  in  apostolic  times,  as  they  now  have, 
authority  to  preach  the  word,  and  administer  sacraments,  is  uni- 
versally allowed  by  Episcopalians  themselves.  Now,  if  we  consult 
either  the  original  commission,  or  subsequent  instructions  given 
ministers,  in  various  parts  of  the  New  Testament,  we  shall  find 
these  constantly  represented  as  the  highest  acts  of  ministerial 
authority ;  as  the  grand  powers  in  which  all  others  are  included. 
Instead  of  finding  in  the  sacred  volume  the  smallest  hint,  that 
ordaining  ministers,  and  governing  the  Church,  were  functions  of 


TESTIMONY   OF   SCRIPTURE.  25 

an  higher  order  than  dispensing  the  word  of  eternal  life  and 
the  seals  of  the  everlasting  covenant ;  the  reverse  is  plainly  and 
repeatedly  taught.  The  latter,  we  have  already  seen,  are  the  most 
prominent  objects  in  the  original  commission  ;  they  formed  the 
principal  business  of  the  apostles  wherever  they  went ;  and  all 
the  authority  with  which  they  were  vested  is  represented  as  being 
subservient  to  the  promulgation  of  that  Gospel  which  is  the  poioer 
of  God  unto  salvation  to  every  one  that  believeth.  Preaching' 
and  administering  sacraments,  therefore,  are  the  highest  acts  of 
ministerial  authority;  they  are  far  above  ordination  and  govern- 
ment, as  the  end  is  more  excellent  than  the  means  ;  as  \hesubstance 
is  more  important  than  \\ieform. 

If,  then,  Presbyters  be  authorized,  as  all  acknowledge,  to  per- 
form these  functions,  we  infer  that  they  are  the  highest  order  of 
Gospel  ministers.  Those  who  are  empowered  to  execute  the  most 
dignified  and  the  most  useful  duties  pertaining  to  the  ministerial 
office,  can  have  no  superiors  in  that  office.  The  Episcopal  system, 
then,  by  depressing  the  teacher,  for  the  sake  of  elevating  the  ruler, 
inverts  the  sacred  order,  and  departs  both  from  the  letter  and  the 
spirit  of  Scripture.  The  language  of  Scripture  is,  Let  the  Pres- 
byters who  rule  well  be  counted  worthy  of  double  honour,  ESPE- 

CIAI^LY  THEY  WHO  LABOUR  IN    THE  WORD  AND  DOCTRINE.     But  the 

language  of  modern  episcopacy  is,  that  labouring  in  the  word  and 
doctrine  is  a  lower  service  in  the  Church,  and  government  a 
more  exalted :  that  bearing  rule  is  more  honourable  and  more 
important  than  to  edify — a  language  which  to  be  refuted  needs 
only  to  be  stated. 

From  these  premises  T  am  compelled  to  conclude,  that  the  offi- 
cer of  the  Christian  Church  who  is  authorized  to  preach  and 
administer  sacraments,  cannot  be  an  inferior  or  subordinate 
officer,  but  must  be  equal  to,  or  rather  the  same  with,  the  scriptural 
Bishop.  And  in  this  reasoning  I  am  supported  by  the  judgment 
of  Bishop  Burnet,  who  declares — "  Since  I  look  upon  the  sacra- 
"  mental  actions,  as  the  highest  of  sacred  performances,  T  cannot 
"  but  acknowledge  those  who  are  empowered  for  them,  must  be  of 
"  the  highest  office  in  the  Church."* 

2.   The  power  of  government,  or  of  ruling  the  Church,  is  also 

*  Vindication  of  the  Church  and  State  of  Scotland,  p.  336. 
D 


26  LETTER  II. 

committed  to  Presbyters.  This  is  denied  by  Episcopalians; 
but  the  Scriptures,  expressly  affirm  it.  The  true  meaning  of  the 
word  Presbyter,  in  its  official  application,  is  a  church  ruler  or 
governor,  as  Episcopalians  themselves  allow.  Hence  the  "  over- 
sight" or  government  of  the  Church  is  in  Scripture  expressly 
assigned  to  Presbyters  as  their  proper  duty.  The  Elders  to  whom 
the  Apostle  Peter  directed  his  first  epistle,  certainly  had  this 
power.  To  them  it  is  said,  The  Elders  which  are  among  you  I 
exhort.  Feed  the  flock  of  God,  taking  the  oversight  thereof,  not 
by  constraint,  but  willingly ;  neither  as  being  lords  over  God's 
heritage,  but  as  ensamples  to  the  flock.  Scarcely  any  words 
could  express  more  distinctly  than  these  the  power  of  ruling  in  the 
Church.  But,  as  if  to  place  the  matter  beyond  all  doubt,  these 
Elders  are  exhorted  to  use  this  power  with  moderation,  and  not 
to  tyrannize,  or  "  lord  it  over  God's  heritage."  Why  subjoin 
this  caution,  if  they  were  not  invested  with  a  governing  authority 
at  all  ? 

The  case  of  the  Elders  of  Ephesus  is  still  more  decisive. — 
When  the  Apostle  Paul  was  about  to  take  his  final  leave  of  them, 
he  addressed  them  thus  :  Take  heed,  therefore,  unto  yourselves, 
and  to  the  flock  over  which  the  Holy  Ghost  hath  made  you 
overseers,  to  feed  the  church  of  God  which  he  hath  purchased 
with  his  own  blood,  &c.  The  word  here  translated  feed,  is 
tfojjaouvsjv,  which  means  taking  such  care  as  a  shepherd  does  of  his 
flock ;  and,  of  course,  implies  watching  over,  guiding,  and 
ruling,  as  well  as  feeding.  Here  the  government  of  this  Church, 
then,  as  well  as  ministering  in  the  word,  is  evidently  vested  in  the 
Elders.  No  mention  is  made  of  any  individual,  who  had  the 
whole  ruling  power  vested  in  him,  or  even  a  larger  share  of  it  than 
others.  Had  there  been  a  Bishop  in  this  Church,  in  the  Episcopal 
sense  of  the  word,  that  is  a  single  person  of  superior  order  to  these 
Elders,  and  to  whom,  of  course,  they  were  in  subjection,  it  is 
strange  that,  in  this  whole  account,  we  do  not  once  find  the  most 
distant  allusion  to  him.*  When  the  Apostle  was  telling  the 
Elders  that  they  should  never  see  his  face  more,  and  that  dissen- 

*  The  reader  will  bear  in  mind,  that  the  zealous  advocates  for  Epis- 
copacy suppose  and  assert  that  Timothy  was  Bishop  of  Ephesus  at  this 
time.  On  what  grounds  this  assertion  is  made  will  be  seen  in  the  next 
letter. 


TESTIMONY   OF   SCRIPTURE.  21 

sions  and  difficulties  were  about  to  arise  in  their  Church,  could 
there  have  been  a  more  fit  occasion  to  address  their  superior,  had 
there  been  such  a  man  present  ?  To  whom  could  instruction  have 
been  so  properly  directed,  in  this  crisis,  as  to  the  Chief  Shepherd  ? 
On  the  other  hand,  supposing  such  a  superior  to  have  existed,  and 
to  have  been  prevented  by  sickness,  or  any  other  means,  from 
attending  at  this  conference,  why  did  not  the  Apostle  remind  the 
Elders  of  their  duty  to  him  ?  Why  did  he  not  exhort  them,  in 
the  strife  and  divisions  which  he  foretold  as  approaching,  to  cleave 
to  their  Bishop,  and  submit  to  him,  as  the  best  means  of  unity  and 
peace  ?  And,  finally,  supposing  their  Bishop  to  have  been  dead, 
and  the  office  vacant,  why  did  not  the  Apostle,  when  about  to  take 
leave  of  a  flock  so  much  endeared  to  him,  select  a  Bishop  for  them, 
ordain  him  with  his  own  hands,  and  commit  the  Church  to  his 
care?  But  not  a  word  of  all  this  appears.  No  hint  is  given  of  the 
existence  of  such  a  superior.  On  the  contrary,  the  Apostle  declares 
to  these  Elders,  that  the  Holy  Ghost  had  made  them  Bishops  over 
the  Church  at  Ephesus  ;  he  exhorts  them  to  rule  that  Church  ;  and 
when  about  to  depart,  never  to  see  them  more,  he  leaves  them  in 
possession  of  this  high  trust. 

But  the  passage  just  quoted  from  1  Tim.  v.  is  absolutely  conclu- 
sive on  this  point.  Let  the  Elders  that  rule  well  be  counted  worthy 
of  double  honour,  especially  they  who  labour  in  word  and  doctrine. 
Here  the  power  of  government  in  the  Church  is  ascribed  to 
Presbyters  in  terms  which  cannot  be  rendered  more  plain  and 
decisive.  Here,  also,  we  find  officers  of  the  Church  who  are  not 
recognized  in  the  Episcopal  system,  but  who  are  always  found  in 
the  Presbyterian  Church,  viz.  ruling  Elders,  or  those  who  are 
appointed  to  assist  in  governing  the  Church,  but  who  do  not 
preach  or  administer  sacraments.  But  this  is  not  all :  bearing 
rule  in  the  Church  is  unequivocally  represented  in  this  passage  as 
a  less  honourable  employment  than  preaching,  or  labouring  in  the 
word  and  doctrine.  The  mere  ruling  Elder,  who  performs  his 
duty  well,  is  declared  to  be  worthy  of  "  double  honour ;"  but  the 
Elder  who,  to  this  function,  adds  the  more  dignified  and  important 
one  of  preaching  the  Gospel  of  salvation,  is  declared  to  be  entitled 
to  honour  of  a  still  higher  kind. 

As  this  passage  is  directly  hostile  to  the  claims  of  modern 
Episcopacy,  great  exertions  have  been  made  to  set  aside  its 


28  LETTER  I. 

testimony.  To  effect  this  the  most  unnatural  glosses  have  been 
adopted.  Instead  of  formally  stating  and  answering  these,  I  will 
content  myself  with  delivering  the  opinions  of  three  distinguished 
divines,  whose  judgment  on  such  a  subject  will  be  despised  by 
none.  Dr.  Owen  declares — "  This  would  be  a  text  of  uncontrolla- 
"  ble  evidence,  if  it  had  any  thing  but  prejudice  and  interest  to 
"contend  wilh.  On  the  first  proposal  of  this  text— That  the 
"  Elders  who  rule  well  are,  worthy  of  double  honour,  especially 
"  they  who  labour  in  word  and  doctrine,  a  rational  man,  who  is 
"  unprejudiced,  who  never  heard  of  the  controversy  about  ruling 
"  Elders,  can  hardly  avoid  an  apprehension  that  there  are  two 
"sorts  of  Elders,  some  that  labour  in  the  word  and  doctrine,  and 
"  some  who  do  not  do  so.  The  truth  is,  it  was  interested  prejudice 
"  that  first  caused  some  learned  men  to  strain  their  wits  to  find  out 
"evasions  from  the  evidence  of  this  testimony;  being  so  found, 
"  some  others,  of  meaner  abilities,  have  been  entangled  by  them." 
The  language  of  Dr.  Whitaker,  a  zealous  and  learned  Episcopalian, 
is  equally  strong  and  decided,  with  regard  to  this  passage.  "  By 
"  these  words,"  says  he,  "  the  Apostle  evidently  distinguishes  be- 
"  tween  the  Bishops  and  the  inspectors  of  the  Church.  If  all  who  rule 
"  well  be  worthy  of  double  honour,  especially  they  who  labour  in  the 
"  word  and  doctrine,  it  is  plain  there  were  some  who  did  not  so 
"  labour ;  for  if  all  had  been  of  this  description,  the  meaning 
"  would  have  been  absurd  ;  but  the  word  especially  points  out  a 
"  difference.  If  I  should  say,  that  all  who  study  well  at  the 
"  university  are  worthy  of  double  honour,  especially  they  who 
"  labour  in  the  study  of  theology,  I  must  either  mean  that  all  do 
"  not  apply  themselves  to  the  study  of  theology,  or  I  should  speak 
<(  nonsense.  Wherefore  I  confess  that  to  be  the  most  genuine  sense 
tl  by  which  pastors  and  teachers  are  distinguished  from  those  who 
"  only  govern." — Pra>lect.  ap.  Didioclav.  p.  681.  Equally  to 
our  purpose  is  the  opinion  of  that  acute  and  learned  Episcopalian 
Dr.  Whitby,  in  his  Note  on  this  passage.  "  The  Elders  of  the 
Jews,"  says  he,  "  were  of  two  sorts;  1st.  Such  as  governed  in 
"  the  Synagogue ;  and  2dly.  Such  as  ministered  in  reading  and 
<*  expounding  their  Scriptures,  &c.  And  these  the  Apostle  here 
"  declares  to  be  the  most  honourable,  and  worthy  of  the  chiefest 
"  reward.  Accordingly,  the  Apostle,  reckoning  up  the  offices  God 


TESTIMONY   OP  SCRIPTURE.  29 

"  had  appointed  in  the  Church,  places  teachers  before  governments. 
"  1  Corin.  xii.  28." 

3.  The  Scriptures  also  represent  Presbyters  as  empowered  to 
ordain,  and  as  actually  exercising  this  power.  Of  this  we  can 
produce  at  least  three  instances  of  the  most  decisive  kind. 

The  first  is  recorded  in  Acts  xiii.  as  follows.  Now  there  were 
in  the  Church  that  was  at  Antioch,  certain  prophets  and  teachers, 
as  Barnabas,  and  Simeon,  that  was  called  Niger,  and  Lucius  of 
Cyrene,  and  Manaen,  which  had  been  brought  up  with  Herod  the 
Tetrarch,  and  Saul.  As  they  ministered  to  the  Lord.}  and  fasted, 
the  Holy  Ghost  said,  Separate  me  Barnabas  and  Saul  for  the 
work  whereunto  I  have  called  them.  And  when  they  had 
fasted  and  prayed,  and  laid  their  hands  on  them,  they  sent  them 
away.  This  is  the  most  ample  account  of  an  ordination  to  be 
found  in  Scripture ;  and  it  is  an  account  which,  were  there  no 
other,  would  be  sufficient  to  decide  the  present  controversy,  in  our 
favour.  Who  were  the  ordainers  on  this  occasion?  They  were  not 
Apostles.  Lest  this  should  be  supposed,  their  names  are  given. 
They  were  not  Bishops,  in  the  modern  sense  of  the  word ;  for 
there  were  a  number  of  them  ministering  together  in  the  same 
Church.  They  were  the  Prophets  and  Teachers  of  the  Church  at 
Antioch.  With  respect  to  these  Teachers,  no  higher  character  has 
ever  been  claimed  for  them  than  that  of  Presbyters,  labouring  in 
the  word  and  doctrine.  And  as  to  the  Prophets,  though  the 
precise  nature  of  their  endowments  and  office  be  not  certainly 
known  ;  yet  there  is  complete  evidence  that  they  did  not  sustain 
that  particular]ecclesiastica!  rank,  with  which  Episcopalians  contend 
that,  in  the  days  of  the  Apostles,  the  power  of  ordaining  was 
connected.  Still  these  ministers  ordained;  and  they  did  this 
under  the  immediate  direction  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  who  cannot  be 
supposed  to  have  sanctioned  any  departure  from  an  essential 
principle  of  Church  government. 

To  invalidate  this  reasoning,  some  Episcopal  writers  have 
suggested  that  the  ordination  here  recorded  was  performed  not  by 
the  Teachers,  but  by  the  Prophets  only.  But  nothing  like  this 
appears  in  the  sacred  text.  On  the  contrary,  its  plain  and  simple 
import  forbids  such  a  construction.  The  command  to  ordain  Paul 
and  Barnabas  was  directed  both  to  the  Prophets  and  Teachers  ; 
and  we  are  told  that  they  proceeded  immediately  to  the  performance 


30  LETTER  II. 

of  the  solemn  act  to  which  they  were  called.  To  suppose,  therefore, 
that  the  Teachers  either  did  not  engage  in  this  ordination  ;  or  that, 
if  they  did  participate  in  the  transaction,  it  was  rather  as  witnesses 
expressing  consent,  than  as  ordainers  conveying  authority,  or 
ratifying  a  commission,  is  a  supposition  as  illegitimate  in  reasoning, 
as  it  is  repugnant  to  the  sacred  narrative. 

Another  plea  urged  against  this  example  is,  that  it  is  not  to  be 
considered  as  an  ordination  at  all  ;  that  both  Paul  and  Barnabas 
had  been  recongnized  as  ministers  of  the  Gospel  several  years 
before  this  event ;  and  that  it  is  rather  to  be  regarded  as  a  solemn 
benediction,  previous  to  their  entering  on  a  particular  mission 
among  the  Gentiles.  It  is  readily  granted  that  Paul  and  Barnabas 
had  been  engaged  in  preaching  the  Gospel  long  before  this  time. 
But.  there  is  no  evidence  that  either  of  them  had  ever  before  been 
set  apart  by  human  ordainers.  It  seemed  good,  therefore,  to  the 
Holy  Ghost,  that  before  they  entered  on  their  grand  mission  to 
the  Gentiles,  they  should  receive  that  kind  of  ordination,  which 
was  intended  to  be  perpetual  in  the  Church.  No  example  of  such 
an  ordination  had  yet  been  given.  If  the  practice  were  ever  to  be 
established,  it  was  necessary  that  a  beginning  should  be  made.  And 
as  these  missionaries  were  about  to  travel  among  a  people,  who 
were  not  familiar  with  the  rite  of  ordination  by  the  imposition  of 
hands,  so  well  understood  by  the  Jews,  it  was  judged  proper  by 
infinite  Wisdom  to  set  this  example  for  imitation  in  all  subsequent 
periods.  And  as  if  to  give  the  strongest  practical  declaration  of 
ministerial  parity,  Paul,  with  all  the  elevation  of  his  gifts,  and  all 
the  lustre  of  his  apostolic  character,  submitted  to  be  ordained, 
together  with  his  brother  Barnabas,  agreeably  to  the  regular 
principles  of  Church  order,  by  the  prophets  and  teachers  of  the 
Church  of  Antioch. 

It  may  further  be  observed,  that  if  this  be  not  an  ordination,  it 
will  be  difficult  to  say  what  constitutes  one.  Here  were  fasting 
prayer,  the  imposition  of  hands,  and  every  circumstance  attending 
a  formal  investiture  with  the  ministerial  office,  as  particularly 
stated  as  in  any  instance  on  record.  And,  accordingly,  Dr. 
Hammond,  one  of  the  most  able  and  zealous  advocates  for 
Episcopacy,  does  not  scruple  to  pronounce  it  a  regular  ordination  ; 
though  for  the  sake  of  maintaining  his  system,  he  falls  into  the 
absurdity  of  supposing,  without  a  shadow  of  proof  from  any  source, 


TESTIMONY  OF  SCRIPTURE.  31 

that  Simeon,  Lusius  and  Manaen,  were  diocesan  Bishops;  a 
supposition  wholly  irreconcilable  with  the  diocesan  scheme,  since 
they  were  all  ministering  in  the  Church  at  Antioch.  Bishop 
Taylor,  another  eminent  Episcopal  writer,  considers  this  transaction 
as  a  regular  ordination  ;  for  speaking  of  Paul,  he  says—"  He  had 
"  the  special  honour  to  be  chosen  in  an  extraordinary  way  ;  yet 
"  he  had  something  of  the  ordinary  too;  for,  in  an  extraordinary 
"  manner  he  was  sent  to  be  ordained  in  an  ordinary  ministry.  His 
"  designation  was  as  immediate  as  that  of  the  eleven  apostles, 
"  though  his  ordination  was  not."  This  also  was  the  judgment  of 
the  learned  Dr.  Lightfoot.  "  No  better  reason,"  says  he,  "  can  be 
"  given  of  this  present  action,  than  that  the  Lord  did  hereby  set 
"  down  a  platform  of  ordaining  ministers  to  the  Church  of  the 
"  Gentiles  in  future  times."  And,  finally,  Chrysostom,  one  of  the 
early  Fathers,  delivers  the  same  opinion.  He  asserts  that  "  Paul 
was  ordained  at  Antioch,"  and  quotes  this  passage  from  the  Acts 
of  the  Apostles  in  support  of  his  assertion. 

But,  after  all,  it  does  not  destroy  the  argument,  even  if  we 
concede  that  the  case  before  us  was  not  a  regular  ordination.  It 
was  certainly  a  solemn  separation  to  the  work  to  which  the  Holy 
Ghost  had  called  them.  This  is  the  language  of  the  inspired  writer, 
and  cannot  be  controverted.  Now,  it  is  a  principle  which  pervades 
the  scriptures,  that  an  inferior  is  never  called  formally  to  pronounce 
benediction  on  an  official  superior.  Did  any  man  ever  hear,  in  a 
church  organized  upon  prelatical  principles  of  Presbyters  under- 
taking, on  any  occasion,  to  set  apart  a  Bishop,  or  a  group  of 
Bishops,  to  a  particular  service,  by  solemn  prayer  and  the  imposition 
of  hands  ?  On  this  principle  alone,  then,  whether  it  relates  to  a 
regular  ordination  or  not,  the  narrative  before  us  appears  utterly 
to  subvert  prelacy. 

The  next  instance  of  an  ordination  performed  by  Presbyters,  is 
that  of  Timothy,  which  is  spoken  of  by  the  Apostle  Paul,  in  the 
following  terms.  1  Tim.  iv.  14.  Neglect  not  the  gift  that  is  in 
thee,  which  was  given  thee  by  prophecy,  with  the  laying  on  of  the 
hands  of  the  Presbytery.  All  agree  that  the  Apostle  is  here 
speaking  of  Timothy's  ordination  ;  and  this  ordination  is  expressly 
said  to  have  been  performed  with  the  laying  on  of  the  hands  of 
the  Presbytery — that  is,  of  the  Eldership,  or  a  council  of  Presbyters. 

To  this  instance  of  Presbyterian  ordination  it  is  objected,  by 
some  Episcopal  writers,  that  although  a  council  of  presbyters  ap- 


32  LETTER  II. 

pear,  from  this  passage,  to  have  laid  their  hands  on  Timothy  upon 
this  occasion,  yet  the  ordination  was  actually  performed  by  the 
Apostle  alone,  who  elsewhere  addresses  Timothy  in  this  language : 
Wherefore  I  put  thee  in  remembrance,  that  thou  stir  up  the 
gift  of  God  which  is  in  thee,  by  the  putting  on  of  my  hands. 
2  Tim.  i.  6.  They  contend  that,  as  Paul  speaks  of  the  ordination 
as  being  performed  by  the  putting  on  of  his  hands,  and  with  the 
laying  on  of  the  hands  of  the  Presbytery,  we  are  to  infer  that  the 
power  was  conveyed  by  him  only,  and  that  the  Presbyters  only 
imposed  their  hands  by  way  of  concurrence,  and  to  express  their 
approbation. 

But  the  Apostle,  in  speaking  of  a  gift  conveyed  to  Timothy  by 
the  putting  on  of  his  hands,  either  refers  to  the  ordination  of  that 
young  minister,  or  he  does  not.  Some  have  supposed  that  he  does 
not  refer  to  that  transaction  at  all,  but  to  an  occasion  and  a  solemnity 
altogether  different,  when,  by  the  imposition  of  his  hands  alone,  he 
communicated  to  Timothy  the  extraordinary  gifts  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,  to  impart  which,  by  the  laying  on  of  hands,  belonged,  as  is 
generally  supposed,  exclusively  to  the  Apostles.  If  this  supposition 
be  admitted,  and  some  of  the  greatest  divines  that  ever  lived  have 
adopted  it,  then  the  objection  before  us  totally  falls  to  the  ground, 
and  it  follows,  that  the  presbyters  alone  were  the  ordainers  in  this 
instance.  If,  on  the  other  hand,  we  suppose  that  the  Apostle,  in 
both  passages,  is  speaking  of  the  ordination  of  Timothy,  and  that  he 
and  the  Presbytery  both  participated  in  the  transaction,  the  suppo- 
sition will  be  equally  fatal  to  the  Episcopal  cause.  For  let  it  be 
remembered,  that  all  Episcopalians,  in  this  controversy,  take  for 
granted,  that  Timothy  was,  at  this  time,  ordained  a  Diocesan 
Bishop.  But  if  this  were  so,  how  came  presbyters  to  lay  their 
hands  on  him  at  his  ordination  ?  We  know  that  presbyters  in  the 
Episcopal  Church,  are  in  the  habit  of  laying  on  their  hands,  with 
those  of  the  Bishop,  in  ordaining  presbyters ;  but  was  it  ever 
heard  of,  in  the  Christian  Church,  after,  the  distinction  between 
Bishops  and  presbyters  arose,  that  those  who  admitted  this  dis- 
tinction suffered  presbyters  to  join  with  Bishops,  by  imposing 
hands  in  the  consecration  of  a  Bishop  ?  No  ;  on  Episcopal  princi- 
ples, this  would  be  an  irregularity  of  the  most  absurd  and  inadmis- 
sible kind.  To  this  our  opponents  reply,  that  the  Presbyters  in 
this  case  joined  with  the  Apostle  in  the  imposition  of  hands,  not 


TESTIMONY  OF  SCRIPTURE.  33 

as  ordainers,  but  merely  to  express  their  concurrence  and  appro- 
bation. But  do  Presbyters,  even  in  this  sense,  unite  in  imposing 
hands  in  the  consecration  cf  a  diocesan  Bishop  ?  Or  were  they 
ever  known  to  do  so  in  Episcopal  Churches  ?  Besides,  after  all, 
the  whole  idea  of  some  laying  on  their  hands  in  ordination,  not  as 
ordainers,  but  merely  to  express  their  approbation,  is  a  conceit 
without  any  foundation  in  scripture ;  contradicted  by  the  earliest 
and  best  records  of  the  primitive  Church  ;  and  manifestly  invented 
to  evade  the  force  of  an  irresistible  argument,  I  challenge  any  one 
to  produce  me  a  single  passage  from  the  word  of  God,  or  from  any 
Christian  writer  within  the  first  three  hundred  years  after  Christ, 
which  gives  the  least  countenance  to  this  fanciful  supposition. 

But  it  is  still  urged,  that  the  mode  of  expression  is  different  with 
respect  to  the  imposition  of  the  Apostle's  hands,  and  those  of  the 
Presbytery ;  that  Timothy  is  said  to  have  received  his  gift  by  the 
former,  and  with  the  latter.  And  accordingly  much  ingenious 
criticism  has  been  wasted  on  the  prepositions  diu  and  /jt-sra,  in  order 
to  show,  that  the  former  expresses  agency,  while  the  latter  more 
commonly  signifies  mere  concurrence:  from  which  it  has  been 
inferred  that  Paul  alone  was  the  real  ordainer,  or,  in  other  words, 
conveyed  the  ministerial  authority  by  the  imposition  of  his  hands ; 
while  the  Presbyters  laid  on  their  hands  only  as  witnesses,  and  for 
the  purpose  of  giving  their  countenance  to  the  transaction.  I 
forbear  to  apply  to  this  criticism  those  epithets  which  it  has  always 
appeared  to  me  to  deserve  5  nor  shall  I  detain  you  by  attempting 
to  expose  the  weakness  of  that  cause  whose  advocates  fly  for  suc- 
cour to  a  quibble,  founded  on  the  doubtful  interpretation  of  two 
Greek  particles.  It  is  enough  for  me  to  assure  such  of  you,  my 
brethren,  as  are  not  able  to  judge  for  yourselves  in  this  matter,  that 
the  criticism  and  quibble  in  question  are  wholly  unworthy  of  your 
regard ;  that  these  words  both  frequently  signify  by  as  well  as  with, 
and  express  agency,  as  well  as  concurrence  ;*  and  that  the 

*  It  is  remarkable  that  the  learned  Jerome,  more  than  1400  years  ago, 
adopted  the  Presbyterian  construction  of  this  passage.  He  thus  trans- 
lates 1  Tim.  iv.  14.  Noli  negligere  gratiam  quae  in  te  est,  quae,  tibi  data  eat 
prophetia,  per  impositionem  manuum  Presbyterii  :  and  expressly  adduces 
the  passage  to  prove  that  Bishops  and  Presbyters  are,  by  divine  right, 
equal.  The  same  construction  of  the  passage  has  been  adopted  by  the 
most  learned  and  judicious  commentators  ever  since.  9 


34  LETTER  II. 

objection  founded  on  any  supposed  difference  of  meaning  in  their 
application  to  this  case,  has  not  received  the  countenance  of  some 
even  of  the  most  learned  and  respectable  advocates  for  diocesan 
Episcopacy. 

Some  Episcopal  writers,  in  order  to  avoid  the  difficulties  above 
stated,  have  taken  the  liberty  of  supposing,  that  by  the  word 
Presbytery  (*gsrf€uT£giov)  in  this  passage  is  to  be  understood,  not  a 
council  of  Presbyters,  but  the  College  of  the  Apostles.  But  this 
supposition  is  adopted  without  the  least  proof  or  probability.  No 
instance  has  been,  or  can  be  produced,  either  from  the  New  Tes- 
tament, or  from  any  early  Christian  writer,  of  the  Apostles,  as  a 
collective  body,  being  called  a  Presbytery.  On  the  contrary,  this 
word  is  always  used,  in  scripture,  in  the  writings  of  the  primitive 
fathers,  and  particularly  in  the  writings  of  Ignatius,  (who  is  of  the 
highest  authority  with  our  opponents  in  this  dispute,)  to  signify  a 
council  of  Presbyters,  and  never  in  any  other  sense.  But,  allowing 
the  word  Presbytery  to  have  the  meaning  contended  for,  and  that 
Timothy  was  ordained  by  the  bench  of  Apostles,  how  came  the 
modest  and  humble  Paul  to  speak  of  the  whole  gift  as  conveyed 
by  his  hands,  and  not  so  much  as  to  mention  any  other  name  ? 
Were  all  the  rest  of  the  Apostles  mere  concurring  spectators,  and 
and  not  real  ordainers,  as  before  pleaded  ?  Then  it  must  follow, 
not  only  that  Paul  claimed  a  superiority  over  his  brethren,  which 
was  never  heard  of  before  ;  but  also  that  one -Bishop  is  sufficient 
for  the  regular  ordination  of  another  Bishop,  which  is  opposed  to 
every  principle  of  Episcopal  government,  as  well  as  to  the  estab- 
lished canons,  so  far  as  I  know,  of  every  Church  on  earth. 

Finally,  it  has  been  urged  by  some,  against  this  instance  of 
Presbyterian  ordination,  that  the  word  here  translated  Presbytery, 
signifies  the  office  conferred,  and  not  the  body  of  ministers  who 
conferred  it.  Though  this  construction  of  the  passage  has  been 
adopted  by  some  respectable  names,*  it  is  so  absurd  and  unnatural, 

*  Among  those  names,  that  of  the  great  and  venerable  Calvin  appears, 
who,  when  he  wrote  his  Institutes,  adopted  this  unnatural  sense,  and 
expressed  himself  in  the  following-  terms — "  Quod  de  imposition*  ma- 
"  nuum  Presbyterii  dicitur,  non  ita  accipio  quasi  Paulus  de  seniorum 
"  collegia  loquatur  ,•  sed  hoc  nomine  ordinationem  ipsam  intelligo."  Instil, 
lib.  iv.  cap.  2,  sect.  16.  Such  an  interpretation  of  a  plain  passage  of 
scripture,  even  from  so  great  a  man,  deserves  little  regard.  But  Calvin, 


TESTIMONY  OF  SCRIPTURE.  35 

and  so  totally  inconsistent  with  every  rational  principle  of  inter- 
pretation, that  it  scarcely  deserves  a  serious  refutation.  Let  us  see 
ho\v  the  text  will  read  with  this  meaning  attached  to  the  word  in 
question.  Neglect  not  the  gift  that  is  in  thee,  rohich  was  given 
thee  by  prophecy,  with  the  laying  on  of  the  hands  of  thine  office, 
If  this  be  not  nonsense,  it  is  difficult  to  say  what  deserves  that 
name.  But  suppose  we  make  a  monstrous  inversion  of  the  whole 
passage  as  no  rule  of  grammar  will  justify,  and  read  it  thus — 
Neglect  not  the  gift  of  the  Presbytcrate  which  is  in  thee,  which 
was  given  thee  by  prophecy,  with  the  laying  on  of  hands.  It  will 
then  follow,  that  the  office  conferred  upon  Timothy  was  the 
Presbyterate,  or  the  office  of  Presbyter  ;  but  this,  while  it  entirely 
coincides  with  the  Presbyterian  doctrine,  will  prove  fatal  to  the 
Episcopal  scheme,  which  constantly  takes  for  granted  that  Timothy 
was  not  a  mere  Presbyter,  but  a  diocesan  Bishop. 

The  last  instance  that  I  shall  mention  of  ordination  performed 
by  Presbyters,  is  that  of  Paul  and  Barnabas,  who,  after  having 
been  regularly  set  apart  to  the  work  of  the  ministry  themselves, 
proceeded  through  the  cities  of  Lystra,  Iconium,  &c.  And  when 
they  had  ordained  them  Elders  in  every  Church,  and  had  prayed 
with  fasting,  they  commended  them  to  the  Lord,  on  whom  they  had 
believed.  Our  adversaries  will  perhaps  say,  that  Paul  alone  per- 
formed these  ordinations  in  his  apostolic  or  episcepal  character; 
and  that  Barnabas  only  laid  on  hands  to  express  his  approbation 
of  what  Paul  did.  But  the  inspired  writer,  as  usual,  speaks  a 
different  language.  He  declares  that  they,  both  of  them,  ordained. 
Perhaps  it  will  be  said,  that  Barnabas  was  himself  an  Apostle,  as 
he  is  so  styled,  Acts  xiv.  14.  and  that  he  joined  with  Paul  in  or- 
daining Presbyters,  in  virtue  of  this  superior  character.  We  all 
know  that  he  was  not  one  of  the  Apostles,  strictly  so  called,  and, 
of  course,  that  none  of  that  pre-eminence  which  belonged  to  their 
character  can  be  claimed  for  him.  The  word  Apostle  signifies 

soon  afterwards,  when  he  came  to  write  his  Commentary,  and  when  his 
judgment  was  more  mature,  gave  a  very  different  opinion.  " Presby- 
"  terium.]  Qui  hie  colleclivum  nomen  esse  putant,  pro  collegia  Presbytero- 
"  rum  positum,  rede  sentiunt  meo  judicio."  Comment,  in  loc.  The  truth 
is,  the  word  Presbyterium  is  borrowed  from  the  Synagogue,  and  was  in 
familiar  use  to  express  the  bench  of  Elders  or  Presbyters,  ever  found  in 
the  Synagogue  system, 


36  LETTER  II. 

simply  a  Messenger,  a  person  sent.  It  was  in  use  among  the 
Greeks,  and  also  among  the  Jews,  before  the  time  of  Christ.  The 
Jewish  Apostles  were  assistants  to  the  High  Priest  in  discussing 
questions  of  the  law ;  and  were  sometimes  employed  in  inferior 
and  secular  duties.  Barronii  Annales,  An.  32.  Accordingly,  be- 
sides the  twelve  apostles  appointed  by  Christ  himself,  there  were, 
in  the  primitive  Churches,  apostles,  or  messengers,  chosen  either 
by  the  twelve,  or  by  the  Churches  themselves,  to  go  to  distant 
places,  on  special  services.  In  this  vague  and  general  sense,  the 
word  apostle  is  repeatedly  used  in  Scripture.  In  this  sense 
Barnabas  and  Epaphroditus  are  called  Apostles.  In  this  sense 
John  the  Baptist  is  called  an  apostle  by  Tertullian.  And  in  the 
same  sense  this  name  is  applied  by  early  Christian  writers  to  the 
seventy  disciples,  and  to  those  who  propagated  the  Gospel  long 
after  the  apostolic  age.  From  this  name,  then,  as  applied  to 
Barnabas,  no  pre-eminence  of  character  can  be  inferred.*  Besides, 
the  supposition  that  he  bore  an  ecclesiastical  rank  above  that  of 
presbyter,  is  effectually  refuted  by  the  fact  that  he  was  himself 
ordained  by  the  presbyters  of  Antioch.  As  a  Presbyter,  therefore, 
he  ordained  others ;  and  the  only  rational  construction  that  can  be 
given  to  the  passage,  renders  it  a  plain  precedent  for  Presbyterian 
ordination. 

IV.  A  fourth  source  of  direct  proof  in  favour  of  the  Presbyterian 
plan  of  Church  Government,  is  found  in  the  model  of  the  Jewish 
Synagogue,  and  in  the  abundant  evidence  which  the  Scriptures 
afford,  that  the  Christian  Church  was  formed  after  the  same 
model. 

At  Jerusalem  alone,  where  the  Temple  stood,  were  sacrifices 
offered,  and  the  Mosaic  rites  observed.  But  in  almost  every  town 
and  village  in  Judea,  Synagogues  were  erected,  like  parish  Churches 
of  modern  times,  for  prayer  and  praise,  for  reading  and  expounding 
the  Scriptures.  The  Temple  worship,  as  will  be  afterwards  shown, 
was,  throughout,  typical  and  ceremonial,  and  of  course  was  done 
away  by  the  coming  of  Christ.  But  the  Synagogue  worship  was 

*  The  translators  of  our  Bible  very  clearly  recognize  this  distinction 
between  the  appropriate  and  the  general  sense  of  the  word  Apostle. 
Thus  in  2  Cor.  viii.  23,  they  render  the  phrase  A7roro\oi  sjeKX»£r/a>v,  the 
messengers  of  the  Churches.  And  in  Philip,  ii.  25,  they  translate  the  word 
etTToroxcf  as  applied  to  Epaphroditus,  messenger. 


TESTIMONY  OF  SCRIPTURE.  37 

altogether  of  a  different  nature.     It  was  that  part  of  the  organized 
religious  establishment  of  the  Old  Testament  Church,  which,  like 
the  decalogue,  was  purely  moral  and  spiritual,  or  at  least  chiefly 
so ;  and,  therefore,  in  its  leading  characters,  proper  to  be  adopted 
under  any  dispensation.     Accordingly  we  find  that  our  Lord  him- 
self frequented  the  Synagogues,  and  taught  in  them;  and  that  the 
apostles,  and  other  Christian  [ministers  in  their  time,  did  the  same. 
It  is  well  known,  also,  that  in  the  city  of  Jerusalem,  where  the 
Gospel  first  began  to  be  preached,  after  the  resurrection  of  Christ, 
and  where  the  New  Testament  Church  was  first  organized,  there 
were,  if  we    may   believe   the    best    writers,   several   hundred 
Synagogues.      It   is  equally  certain  that    the    first  converts   to 
Christianity  were  Jews  ;  that  they  came  into  the  Christian  Church 
with  all  the  feelings  and  habits  of  their  former  connexions,  and 
mode  of  worship  strongly  prevalent;    and  that   they    gave  the 
apostles    much   trouble    by  their    prejudices   in    favour    of   old 
establishments,  and  against  innovation.  It  was  probable,  therefore, 
beforehand,  that,  under  these   circumstances,  the    apostles,  who 
went  so  far  as  to  admit  circumcision,  in   particular  cases,  for  the 
sake  of  keeping  peace  with  some  of  the  first  converts,  would  make 
as  little  change,  in  converting  Synagogues  into  Christian  Churches, 
as  was  consistent  with  the  spirituality  of  the  New  dispensation.  To 
retain  the  ceremonial  worship  of  the  Temple,  they    could    not 
possibly  consent.     To  join  the  Priests  in  offering  up  sacrifices, 
when  the  great  Sacrifice  had  been  already  offered  up  once  for  all; 
to  attend  on  the  typical  entrance  of  the  High  Priest,  once  a  year, 
with  the  blood  of  the  sacrifice,  into  the  Holy  of  Holies,  while  they 
were,  at  the  same  time,  teaching  that  all  these  things  were  done 
away,  and  that  the  great  High  Priest  of  our  profession  had  finally 
entered  into  the  holiest  of  all,  even  into  heaven  for  us  ;  would 
have  been  an  inconsistency  not  to  be  admitted.     But  no  such 
inconsistency  could  be  charged  against  a  general  conformity  to  the 
Synagogue  model.     And,  therefore,  as  might  have  been  expected, 
we  find   that  this  conformity  was  actually  adopted.     This  will 
appear  abundantly  evident  to  every  impartial  inquirer,  by  attend- 
ing to  the  following  considerations. 

1.  The  words  Synagogue  and  Church  have  the  same  significa- 
tion. They  both  signify  an  Assembly  or  Congregation  of  people 
convened  for  the  worship  of  God  ;  and  they  both  signify,  at  the 


38  LETTER  IT. 

same  time,  the  place  in  which  the  assembly  is  convened.  This 
community  of  signification,  indeed,  is  so  remarkable,  that  in  the 
Septuagint  translation  of  the  Old  Testament,  the  Hebrew  word  for 
expressing  an  Assembly,  is  thirty-seven  times  rendered  Synagogue 
(Suvaywyij;  tmd  se;enty  times  translated  Church,  (ExxX^tfia),  the 
precise  word  employed  in  the  New  Testament  to  express  a 
Christian  assembly.  In  fact,  in  one  instance,  a  Christian  congre- 
gation is  by  an  inspired  writer  denominated  a  Synagogue.  The 
Apostle  James  says — My  brethren,  have  not  thefaith  of  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ  the  Lord  of  glory,  with  respect  of  persons.  For  if 
there  come  into  your  assembly,  (in  the  original  your  Synagogue^) 
a  man  with  a  gold  ring,  &c.  I  am  aware  that  this  coincidence  in 
the  meaning  of  these  words  is  not  absolutely  conclusive;  but  it  is 
one  among  the  numerous  concurring  facts  which  prove  that  our 
Lord  and  his  Apostles  adopted  that  language  which  was  familiar 
to  the  Jews,  and  to  all  who  were  acquainted  with  their  Scriptures ; 
and  especially  to  those  who  frequented  the  Synagogue  service. 

2.  The  mode  of  worship  adopted  in  the  Christian  Church  by 
the  Apostles,  was  substantially  the  same  with  that  which  had  been 
long  practised  in  the  Synagogue.  In  the  Synagogue,  as  we  learn 
from  Maimonides,  and  others,  divine  service  was  begun  by  the 
solemn  reading  of  a  portion  of  Scripture,  by  a  person  appointed  for 
that  service  ;  to  this  succeeded  an  exhortation  or  sermon,  by  the 
Ruler  of  the  Synagogue,  or  Bishop,  whose  office  will  be  hereafter 
noticed.  The  sermon  being  finished,  solemn  prayers  were  offered 
up,  by  the  same  ruler,  at  the  end  of  which  the  people  said,  Amen- 
Now,  if  we  examine  the  New  Testament,  and  those  writings  of 
the  primitive  Fathers,  whose  authenticity  has  never  been 
questioned,  we  shall  find,  not  only  a  striking  similarity,  but  almost 
a  perfect  coincidence,  in  the  mode  of  conducting  the  worship  of 
Christian  assemblies.  That  the  ministers  of  the  Christian  Church, 
in  like  manner,  made  a  practice,  in  their  religious  assemblies,  of 
reading  the  Scriptures,  delivering  discourses  and  offering  up  solemn 
prayer,  at  the  close  of  which  the  people  gave  their  assent,  by 
saying,  Amen,  is  expressly  stated  in  Scripture.  And  when  Justin 
Martyr  gives  an  account  of  the  Christian  worship,  in  his  day,  it  is 
in  the  following  terms—'-  Upon  the  day  called  Sunday,  all  the 
"  Christians,  whether  in  town  or  country,  assemble  in  the  same 
"  place,  wherein  the  commentaries  of  the  Apostles,  and  the  writings 


TESTIMONY  OF  SCRIPTURE.  39 

««  of  the  Prophets,  are  read,  as  long  as  the  time  will  permit.  Then 
"  the  reader  sitting  down,  the  President  of  the  assembly  stands  up 
"  and  delivers  a  sermon  instructing  and  exporting  to  the  imitation 
"  of  that  which  is  comely.  After  this  is  ended,  we  all  stand  up  to 
"  prayers  :  prayers  being  ended,  the  bread,  wine,  and  water,  are 
"  all  brought  forth  ;  then  the  President  again  praying  and  praising 
"  according  to  his  ability,  the  people  testify  their  assent  by  saying, 
"Amen."  Here  we  see  no  material  difference  between  the 
Synagogue  and  Christian  worship,  excepting  the  introduction  of 
the  Lord's  Supper  into  the  latter. 

3.  The  titles  given  to  the  officers  of  the  Synagogue  were  trans- 
ferred to  the  officers  of  the  Christian  Church.  In  every  Synagogue, 
as  those  who  are  most  profoundly  learned  in  Jewish  Antiquities 
tell  us,  there  were  a  Bishop,  a  bench  of  Elders,  and  Deacons.  The 
first  named  of  these  officers  was  called  indifferently,  Minister, 
Bishop,  Pastor,  Presbyter,  and  Angel  of  the  Church*.     The 
presbyters    or  Elders  in    each    Synagogue,  according    to  some 
writers,  were  three,  and,  according  to  others,  more  numerous.  And 
the  Bishop   was    called  a  presbyter,  because    he  sat    with  the 
presbyters  in  council,  and  was  associated  with  them  in  authority. 
It  is  remarkable  that  all  these  titles  were  adopted  in  the  organiza- 
tion of  the  Christian  Church,  as  will  appear,  on  the  slighest  perusal 
of  the  New  Testament.     And  it  is  still  more  remarkable  that  not 
only  the  same  variety,  but  also  precisely  the  same  interchange  of 
titles,  in  the  case  of  the  principal  officer  of  the  Synagogue,  was 
retained  by  the  Apostles  in  speaking  of  the  Pastors  of  Christian 
congregations. 

4.  Not  only  the  titles  of  officers,  but  also  their  characters, 
duties,  and  powers,  in    substance,  were    transferred    from  the 
Synagogue  to  the  Christian  Church.     The  Bishop  or  pastor  who 
presided  in  each  Synagogue,  directed  the  reading  of  the  Law ; 
expounded  it  when  read  ;  offered  up  public  prayers  5  and,  in  short, 
took  the  lead  in  conducting  the  public  service  of  the  Synagogue. 
This  description  applies  with  remarkable  exactness  to  the  duties 
and  powers  of  the  Christian  Bishop.     The  bench  of  Elders  in  the 

*  Maimonides,  the  celebrated  Jewish  Rabbi,  who  lived  in  the  12th 
century,  in  his  learned  work,  De  Sanhed.  cap.  4.  decribes  the  Bishop  of 
the  Synagogue,  as  "the  Presbyter  who  laboured  in  the  word  and 
doctrine." 


40  LETTER  II. 

Synagogue  had  entrusted  to  them  the  general  powers  of  government 
and  discipline ;  and  in  like  manner,  the  Elders  or  presbyters,  in 
the  Christian  Church  are  directed  to  rule  the  flock,  and  formal 
directions  are  given  them,  for  maintaining  the  purity  of  faith  and 
practice.  The  bench  of  Elders,  in  the  Synagogue,  appears  to 
have  been  made  up  of  two  classes ;  of  those  who  both  taught  and 
ruled,  and  those  who,  in  fad,  whatever  their  authority  might  have 
been,  were  employed  only  in  ruling.  And  accordingly,  in  the 
Christian  Church,  we  read  of  Elders  who  labour  in  the  word  and 
doctrine,  as  well  as  rule  ;  and  of  other  Elders  who  rule  only.  In 
the  Synagogue  the  office  of  the  Deacons  was  to  collect  and  distri- 
bute alms  to  the  poor.  In  conformity  with  which,  the  Deacons  of 
the  Christian  Church  are  represented,  in  the  sixth  chapter  of  the 
Acts  of  the  Apostles,  as  appointed  for  the  purpose  of  ministering 
to  the  poor,  arid  serving  tables. 

5.  Finally,  the  mode  of  ordaining  officers  in  the  Synagogue  was 
transferred  to  the  Christian  Church.  In  the  introduction  of  men 
to  the  ceremonial  priesthood  of  the  Jews,  or  into  the  offices  per- 
taining to  the  Temple  service,  there  was  no  such  thing,  strictly 
speaking,  as  ordination.  Both  the  Priests  and  Levites  came  to 
their  respective  offices  by  inheritance,  and  were  inducted  or 
installed,  simply  by  being  brought  before  the  Sanhedrim,  and 
receiving  the  approbation  of  that  body.  But,  in  the  Synagogue 
service,  the  officers  were  solemnly  elected,  and  ordained  by  the 
imposition  of  hands.  Every  presbyter,  who  had  himself  been 
regularly  ordained,  was  authorized  to  act  in  the  ordination  of  other 
Presbyters :  and  to  make  a  valid  ordination  in  the  Synagogue,  it 
was  necessary  that  three  ordainers  should  be  present,  and  take  part 
in  the  transaction.  In  like  manner,  we  learn  from  the  New  Testa- 
ment, that  in  Apostolic  times,  as  well  as  ever  since,  the  ministers 
of  the  Christian  Church  were  ordained  by  the  imposition  of  hands; 
that  Presbyters,  as  well  as  the  Apostles  themselves,  were  empowered 
to  ordain  ;  and  that  in  the  first  ordination  of  ministers  of  the 
Gospel  recorded  by  the'inspired  writers,  there  were  always  a 
plurality  of  ordainers  present,  and  engaged  in  the  solemnity. 

Thus  I  have  given  you  a  very  brief  sketch  of  the  evidence  that 
Christian  Churches  were  organized  by  the  Apostles,  after  the 
model  of  the  Jewish  Synagogues.  I  have  shown  that  the  mode  of 
worship  adopted  in  the  Church,  the  titles  of  her  officers,  their 


TESTIMONY  OF  SCRIPTURE.  41 

powers,  duties,  and  mode  of  ordination,  were  all  copied  from  the 
Synagogue.  This  evidence  might  be  pursued  much  further,  did 
the  limits  which  T  have  prescribed  to  myself  admit  of  details.  It 
might  easily  be  shown,  that  in  all  those  respects  in  which  the 
service  of  the  Synagogue  differed  from  that  of  the  Temple,  the 
Christian  Church  followed  the  former.  The  Temple  service  was 
confined  to  Jerusalem;  the  Synagogue  worship  might  exist,  and  did 
exist  wherever  there  was  a  sufficient  number  of  Jews  to  form  a 
congregation.  The  temple  service  was  restricted  with  regard  to 
the  vestments  of  its  officers ;  while  in  the  Synagogue  there  was 
little  or  no  regulation  on  this  subject.  And,  finally,  it  is  remarkable, 
that  the  mode  in  which  the  Bishop  and  Elders  of  each  Synagogue 
were  seated  during  the  public  service,  was  exactly  copied  into  the 
Christian  assemblies.  With  regard  to  these  and  many  other 
particulars  which  might  be  mentioned,  the  Christian  Churches  in 
primitive  times,  it  is  well  known,  departed  from  the  ceremonial 
splendour  of  the  Temple,  and  followed  the  simplicity  of  the 
Synagogue.  In  fact,  there  is  ample  proof,  that  the  similarity 
between  the  primitive  Christian  Churches,  and  the  Jewish  Syna- 
gogues was  so  great,  that  they  were  often  considefed  and 
represented  by  the  persecuting  Pagans  as  the  same. 

In  support  of  the  foregoing  statements,  it  would  be  easy  to  pro- 
duce authorities  of  the  hip1  ,t  character.  The  general  fact,  that 
the  Christian  church  was  organized  by  the  inspired  apostles,  not 
on  the  plan  of  the  Temple  service,  but  after  the  Synagogue  model, 
is  amply  shown,  by  the  celebrated  John  Selden,  in  his  work,  De 
Synedriis;  by  Dr.  Lightfoot,  a  learned  Episcopal  divine,  in  his 
HOTCR  Hebraic^;  by  the  very  learned  Grotius,  in  several  parts 
of  his  Commentary  ;  by  Dr.  (afterwards  Bishop)  Stillingfleet,  in 
his  Irenicum;  and,  above  all,  by  Vitringa,  in  his  profound  and 
able  work,  De  Synagoga  Vetere — to  which  the  author  has  given 
this  bold  title — "  Three  books  on  the  ancient  Synagogue;  in  which 
it  is  demonstrated,  that  the  form  of  government,  and  of  the  minis- 
try in  the  Synagogue  was  transferred  to  the  Christian  Church."  If 
there  be  any  points  concerning  the  history  and  polity  of  the 
Church,  which  may  be  considered  as  indubitably  established,  this, 
unquestionably,  is  among  the  number.  Out  of  many  more  modern 
writers,  who  concur  in  the  same  testimony,  I  shall  content  myself 
with  three,  whose  opinion  no  adequate  judge  will  disregard. 
F 


42  LETTER  II. 

The  first  is  the  celebrated  Augustus  Neander,  Professor  in  the 
University  of  Berlin,  and  generally  considered  as,  perhaps,  more 
profoundly  skilled  in  Ecclesiastical  History,  than  any  other  man 
now  living.  He  is,  moreover,  a  minister  of  the  Lutheran  Church, 
and,  of  course,  has  no  sectarian  spirit  to  gratify  in  vindicating 
Presbyterianism.  After  showing  at  some  length  that  the  govern- 
ment of  the  primitive  Church  was  not  monarchical  or  lordly,  but 
dictated  throughout  by  a  spirit  of  mutual  love,  counsel,  and  prayer, 
he  goes  on  to  express  himself  thus — "  We  may  suppose  that  where 
"  any  thing  could  be  found  in  the  way  of  Church  forms  which  was 
"  consistent  with  this  spirit,  it  would  be  willingly  appropriated  by 
"  the  Christian  community.  Now  there  happened  to  be  in  the 
"  Jewish  Synagogue  a  system  of  government  of  this  nature,  not 
"  monarchical,  but  rather  aristocratical,  (or  a  government  of  the 
"  most  venerable  and  excellent.  A  council  of  Elders,  CTJpf 
"  <rgaf$!wsgoj,  who  conducted  all  the  affairs  of  that  body.  It  seemed 
"  most  natural  that  Christianity,  developing  itself  from  the  Jewish 
"  religion,  should  take  this  form  of  government.  This  form  must  also 
"  have  appeared  natural  and  appropriate  to  the  Roman  citizens, 
"  since  their  nation  had,  from  the  earliest  times,  been,  to  some 
"  extent,  under  the  control  of  a  senate,  composed  of  seniors  or 
"  elders.  When  the  Church  was  placed  under  a  Council  of  Elders, 
"  they  did  not  always  happen  to  be  the  oldest  in  reference  to 
"years;  but  age  here,  was,  as  in  the  Latin  Senalus,  and  the 
"  Greek  yegoutfia  expressive  of  worth  or  merit.  Besides  the  common 
"  name  of  these  overseers  of  the  Church,  to  wit,  «r|8tf/8wsgoi,  there 
tl  were  many  other  names  given,  according  the  peculiar  situation 
"  occupied  by  the  individual,  or  rather  his  peculiar  field  of  labour ; 
(t  as  #oifx£v?£,  shepherds,  rj^oufxsvoj,  leaders,  ifgostfrurss  TWV  acfeXpwv, 
"  rulers  of  the  brethren,  and  siftstfoifoi,  overseers.* 

Of  the  same  purport,  is  the  judgment  of  the  celebrated  German 
Commentator,  Professor  Kuinoel,  of  Leipsic,  as  exhibited  in  his 
Commentary  on  the  20th  chapter,  and  28th  verse,  of  the  Acts  of 
Apostles.  After  showing  conclusively  that  the  very  same  persons, 
who  in  the  New  Testament  are  called  Bishops,  and  Shepherds, 
are  also  called  presbyters,  which  he  says,  "  some  have  rashly 
"  denied,  dreaming  of  a  difference  between  Bishops  and  Presbyters 

*  Kirchengeschichte,  p.  283—285. 


TESTIMONY  OF  SCRIPTURE.  43 

« in  the  primitive  Church  ;"  he  goes  on  to  say,  that  the  Christians 
in.  the  time  of  the  Apostles,  established  in  the  Church  a  form 
of  government  and  discipline  similar  to  what  prevailed  in  the 
Jewish  Synagogue.  It  was  the  duty,  he  says,  of  the  rulers  of  the 
Synagogue  to  preserve  discipline,  superintend  the  external  concerns 
of  the  respective  societies  over  which  they  were  placed,  and  also 
to  teach  and  explain  the  law.  In  the  same  manner  it  was  the  duty 
of  the  bishops  or  presbyters  to  superintend  the  government  of  the 
Church,  and  to  teach  the  doctrines  ofthe  Christian  religion.  They 
were  both  governors  and  teachers.  The  rulers  of  the  Synngogues 
were  confined  to  particular  societies,  and  so  were  th.e  first  bishops 
or  presbyters.  No  one  had  any  control,  except  in  the  single  society 
over  which  he  had  been  appointed. 

Rosenmuller,  a  far  famed  critic  and  commentator,  also  of 
Germany,  delivers,  with  great  confidence,  a^similar  opinion,  with 
respect  to  the  conformity  of  the  order  of  the  primitive  church  to 
the  model  of  the  Synagogue.  And  asserts,  with  equal  confidence, 
that  presbyters  and  bishops,  in  the  time  of  the  apostles,  were  the 
same ;  but  that  afterwards,  bestowing  the  title  of  bishop  upon  one, 
by  way  of  eminence,  was  brought  in  by  the  custom  of  the 
Church* 

Unless  I  deceive  myself,  I  have  now  established  the  four 
positions  which  were  stated  at  the  beginning  of  this  letter,  viz. 
That  the  scriptures  contain  but  one  commission  for  the  Gospel 
ministry,  and  that  there  is  no  evidence  of  the  powers  conveyed  by 
this  commission  being  afterwards  divided  between  different  orders 
of  ministers  : — That  the  words  bishop  and  presbyter  are  uniformly 
used  in  the  New  Testament  as  convertible  titles  for  the  same  office  : 
— that  the  same  character  and  powers  are  also,  in  the  sacred 
writings,  ascribed  interchangeably  to  Bishops  and  presbyters,  thus 
plainly  establishing  their  identity  of  order  as  well  as  of  name  :— 
And  that  the  Christian  Church  was  organized  by  the  Apostles, 
after  the  model  of  the  Jewish  Synagogue,  which  was  undeniably 
Presbyterian  in  its  form.t 

These  positions,  thus  established,  decide  the  controversy.    Such 

*  D.  J.  G.  Rosenmulleri.  Scholia  N,  T.  in  Ada  Apostol.  vi.  3.  xi.  30.  xiii. 
1.  xx.  17.  28.— In  Epist.  1  ad  Tim.v.  17. 

f  See  the  subject  of  the  Jewish  Synagogue  further  treated  in  Letter 
III.  of  the  second  series,  included  in  this  volume. 


44  LETTER  II. 

a  concurrence  of  language  and  of  facts  in  support  of  the  doctrine 
of  ministerial  parity,  is  at  once  remarkable  and  conclusive.  I 
mean  conclusive  as  to  the  simple  fact,  that  this  was  the  system 
adopted  in  the  Apostle's  days.  With  respect  to  the  question,  how 
far  the  apostolic  model  of  Church  order  is  unalterably  binding  in 
all  ages,  in  all  nations,  and  under  all  states  of  society,  it  is  wholly 
a  different  inquiry.  On  this  point  men  equally  pious  and  learned 
have  entertained  different  opinions.  My  own  opinion  on  the 
subject  has  been  expressed  in  a  former  letter.  But  I  see  not  how 
any  one  can  peruse  the  New  Testament,  with  an  impartial  mind, 
without  perceiving  that  the  Presbyterian  form  of  Church  govern- 
ment is  there  distinctly  pourtrayed.  This  is  the  "  truly  primitive 
and  apostolic  form."  And  the  more  closely  we  adhere  to  this  form, 
the  more  we  testify  our  respect  for  that  system  which  was  framed 
by  inspired  men,  sanctioned  by  miraculous  powers,  and  made 
pre-eminently  instrumental,  in  the  midst  of  a  frowning  and  hostile 
world,  in  building  up  the  Church  in  holiness,  through  faith,  unto 
salvation. 


LETTER  HI. 

THE  ARGUMENTS   DRAWN   FROM  SCRIPTURE  IN   FAVOUR  OF  DIOCESAN 
EPISCOPACY,  STATED  AND   EXAMINED. 

CHRISTIAN  BRETHREN, 

You  have  seen  what  the  Scriptures  declare  in  support  of  our 
doctrine  of  the  Christian  Ministry.  I  might  safely  rest  the  cause 
on  this  testimony.  But  as  it  is  my  wish  to  do  full  justice  to  our 
opponents,  and  not  to  overlook  or  suppress  a  single  plea  urged  by 
them,  which  has  the  most  distant  appearance  of  plausibility,  I  will 
now  proceed,  with  all  the  candour  I  can  exercise,  to  examine  the 
principal  arguments  in  favour  of  their  system,  which  they  suppose 
are  to  be  found  in  the  word  of  God. 

In  examining  these  arguments,  I  must  again  request  you  to  keep 
steadily  in  view  the  doctrine  for  which  our  Episcopal  brethren 
contend,  and  the  nature  of  that  proof  which  it  is  incumbent  on 
them  to  adduce.  They  appeal  to  Scripture  to  prove  that  Bishops 
are  an  order  of  Clergy  superior  to  Presbyters ;  that  their  superi- 
ority rests  on  the  appointment  of  Christ ;  and  that  with  this 
superioi  order  alone,  are  deposited  all  the  treasures  of  ministerial 
authority  and  succession.  To  support  such  a  claim,  we  demand 
express  warrant.  We  require  those  who  make  the  appeal,  to 
produce  passages  of  Scripture  which  contain  direct  precept,  plain 
undoubted  example,  or  at  least  some  established  principle,  from 
which  their  conclusion  necessarily  flows.  On  a  subject  so  funda- 
mental as  they  represent  this  to  be,  we  cannot  be  contented  with 
gratuitous  assumptions,  or  ingenious  analogies,  which  have  nothing 
to  support  them  but  human  authority.  We  must  have  a  warrant, 
decided  and  clear;  a  warrant  which  would  be  indubitable  and 
satisfactory,  if  all  books,  excepting  the  Bible,  were  banished  from 
the  Church.  Let  us  see  whether  our  claimaints  are  prepared  with 
testimony  of  this  kind. 

I.  The  first  argument  urged  by  the  friends  of  prelacy  is, "  That, 
"  as  the  mosaic  economy  was  intended  to  prefigure  the  Gospel 


46  LETTER  III. 

"  dispensation,  we  may  reasonably  suppose  the  Christian  ministry 
"  to  be  modelled  after  the  Jewish  Priesthood  ;  and  that,  as 
u  there  were,  in  the  Temple  service,  an  High  Priest,  Priests,  and 
"  Levites,  so  we  may  consider  it  as  agreeable  to  the  will  of  Christ, 
"  that  there  should  be  the  corresponding  orders  of  Bishops,  Priests, 
"  and  Deacons,  in  the  New  Testament  Church." 

After  the  ample  proof  adduced  in  the  foregoing  Letter,  that  the 
Christian  Church  was  organized  by  the  Apostles,  not  after  the 
model  of  the  Temple,  but  of  the  Synagogue  service,  I  might  with 
propriety  .dismiss  this  argument,  as  sufficiently  refuted  by  the 
establishment  of  that  fact.  But  as  much  stress  has  been  laid  upon 
the  argument  in  question,  and  as  some  cautious  inquirers  may  wish 
to  see  it  further  discussed,  let  us  proceed  to  a  more  particular 
examination  of  its  merits. 

You  will  observe  the  form  of  this  argument.  It  may  "  reasona- 
bly be  supposed"  that  such  a  correspondence  of  orders  should  exist. 
But  why  "  suppose"  it  ?  Does  the  Word  of  God,  the  great  Charter 
of  the  Christian  Church,  say  that  this  is  the  case  ?  Is  there  a  single 
passage  to  be  found  in  the  sacred  volume,  which  asserts,  or  gives 
the  least  hint,  that  such  a  likeness  or  analogy  either  does,  or  ought 
to  exist  ?  I  will  venture  to  say,  there  is  not.  I  have  met,  indeed, 
with  much  animated  declamation  in  favour  of  this  analogy,  urging 
it  as  a  "  supposable"  thing — as  a  "  reasonable  "  thing,  &c.  &c. 
but  I  have  never  yet  heard  of  a  single  passage  of  scripture,  which 
is  even  pretended  to  teach  the  doctrine  in  question.  For  the  gene- 
ral position,  that  many  of  the  Old  Testament  institutions  had  a 
reference  to,  and  were  intended  to  prefigure  New  Testament 
blessings,  it  will  be  instantly  seen  by  every  discerning  reader,  is 
nothing  to  the  purpose. 

But  this  is  not  all.  There  is  not  only  nothing  to  be  found  in 
Scripture  which  bears  the  least  appearance  of  support  to  this  ar- 
gument $  but  there  is  much  to  be  found  which  contradicts  and 
destroys  it.  It  is  impossible  to  read  the  New  Testament  without 
perceiving,  that  the  Jewish  Priesthood  was  atypical  and  temporary 
institution,  which  had  both  its  accomplishment  and  its  termination 
in  Christ.  This  is  taught  in  passages  too  numerous  to  be  quoted  ; 
but,  more  particularly,  at  great  length,  and  with  irresistible  force 
of  argument,  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,*  in  which  the  sacred 

*  See  especially  the  vii.  via.  ix.  and  x.  chapters. 


TESTIMONY  OF  SCRIPTURE.  47 

writer  declares,  that  since  Christ  the  substance  is  come,  the  types 
which  prefigured  him  are  done  away;  that  the  Levitical  priesthood 
was  chiefly  employed  in  offering  sacrifices,  and  attending  on  other 
ceremonial  observances  of  the  typical  economy,  for  which  there 
is  no  place  since  the  great  Sacrifice  was  offered  vp  once  for  all; 
and  that  Christ  Jesus  himself  is  now  the  great  High  Priest  of  our 
profession.  Is  it  not  above  measure  wonderful,  that  any  who  have 
the  Bible  in  their  hands,  and  profess  to  make  it  the  rule  of  their 
faith,  should,  in  the  face  of  language  so  explicit  and  decisive,  repre- 
sent any  human  officer  in  the  Christian  Church  as  standing  in 
the  place  of  the  High  Priest  under  the  ceremonial  dispensation  ? 

But  it  will  be  asked,  Do  we  deny  all  connexion  between  the 
Old  and  the  New  Testament  dispensations  ?  Do  we  deny  that 
the  types  and  ceremonies  of  the  Mosaic  economy,  were  a  shadow 
of  good  things  to  come?  By  no  means.  We  warmly  contend  for 
this  connexion.  We  maintain,  with  no  less  zeal  than  our  oppo- 
nents, that  the  whole  system  of  typical  and  figurative  observances 
enjoined  upon  the  Jews,  was  full  of  important  meaning,  and  had  a 
pointed  reference  to  Gospel  blessings.  We  agree,  also,  that  the 
Jewish  Priesthood  was  typical ;  but  of  what  ?  of  a  mere  human 
Priesthood,  to  be  established  under  the  New  Testament  dispensa- 
tion ?  So  far  from  this,  that  the  Apostle,  in  writing  to  the  Hebrews, 
says  directly  the  contrary.  He  tells  us,  that,  as  the  sacrifices 
offered  by  the  priests  under  the  law,  prefigured  the  death  of  Christ, 
and  could  not  with  propriety  be  continued  after  that  event  had 
taken  place  ;  so  the  Levitical  Priesthood  was  a  type  of  that  divine 
High  Priest,  who  once  offered  himself  a  sacrifice  to  satisfy  offended 
justice,  and  entered,  by  his  own  blood,  into  the  holiest  of  all,  even 
into  heaven.  If  any  insist  that,  because  the  ministrations  under 
the  law  were  a  shadow  of  heavenly  things,  we  must  have  a  priest- 
hood under  the  Gospel  of  similar  grades  and  organization;  they 
are  bound,  on  the  same  principle,  to  carry  the  parallel  through, 
and  to  maintain  the  continuance  of  sacrifices,  and  of  many  other 
things  connected  with  the  priestly  office ;  and  I  may  venture  to 
affirm,  that  they  will  find  it  quite  as  easy  to  make  the  scriptures 
speak  in  favour  of  the  latter  as  of  the  former. 

Accordingly  the  words  Priest  and  Priesthood  am  never,  in  one 
instance,  in  the  New  Testament,  applied  to  the  ministers  of  the 


48  LETTER  III. 

Christian  Church,  as  such.*  Episcopalians  appear  to  be  particu- 
larly fond  of  this  language.  It  is  frequently  introduced  into  their 
public  forms,  and  no  less  frequently  used  by  their  standard  writers. 
But  they  employ  it  without  the  smallhst  countenance  from  scrip- 
ture. This  is  the  decided  opinion  of  eminent  Episcopal  divines. 
"  It  is  a  common  mistake,"  says  Dr.  (afterwards  Bishop)  Stilling- 
fleet,  "  to  think  that  the  ministers  of  the  Gospel  succeed  by  way  of 
"  correspondence  and  analogy  to  the  priests  under  the  law ;  which 
"  mistake  hath  been  the  foundation  and  original  of  many  errors. 
"  For  when,  in  the  primitive  Church,  the  name  of  Priests  came  to 
"  be  attributed  to  Gospel  ministers,  from  a  fair  compliance  only, 
"  (as  was  then  thought)  of  the  Christians,  to  the  name  used  both 
"  among  Jews  and  Gentiles;  in  process  of  time  corruptions  in- 
"  creasing  in  the  Church,  those  names  that  were  used  by  Chris- 
"  tians,  by  way  of  analogy  and  accommodation,  brought  in  the 
"  things  themselves  principally  intended  by  those  names.  So  by 
"  the  metaphorical  names  of  Priests  and  Altars,  at  last  came  up 
"  the  sacrifice  of  the  Mass;  without  which  they  thought  the  names 
"  of  Priest  and  Altar  were  insignificant." — Irenicum.  p.  ii.  chap, 
vi.  It  is  also  well  known  that  Archbishop  Cranmer,  Bishop 
Ridley,  and  several  other  eminently  pious  reformers  of  the 
Church  of  England,  .made  zealous  opposition  to  the  use  of  the 
word  Altar,  and  the  whole  system  of  phraseology  connected 
with  it,  as  a  Popish  affectation  of  conformity  the  Temple  service 

*  I  am  not  ignorant  that  some  advocates  for  this  language  have  con- 
tended, that  as  the  word  Priest  is  evidently  a  corruption  of  the  word 
Presbyter ;  and  as  the  latter  is  certainly  applied  to  New  Testament 
ministers,  the  former  may  be  considered  as  having  a  kind  of  scriptural 
warrant.  But  this  conclusion  is  founded  on  a  quibble.  In  the  original 
Hebrew  of  the  Old  Testament  scriptures,  the  sacred  office  of  one  who 
ministered  in  the  Temple  service,  is  expressed  by  a  word,  which,  in  the 
Septuagint,  is  always  rendered  'I tptvs.  This  was  the  Old  Testament  word 
for  a  Levitical  Priest.  Now  this  word  is  never  once  used  in  the  New 
Testament  to  designate  a  minister  of  the  Christian  Church.  And  accord- 
ingly, the  translators  of  our  English  Bible,  faithful  to  the  distinction 
which  they  observed  to  be  uniformly  kept  up  in  the  sacred  language, 
between  the  ministers  of  the  Temple  and  those  of  the  Church;  uniformly 
call  the  forme? Priests,  and  their  office  the  priesthood,-  while  they  as 
uniformly  avoid  applying  these  names  to  the  latter,  but  call  them, 
Elders,  Bishops,  Pastors,  8;c. 


TESTIMONY   OF  SCRIPTURE.  49 

of  the  Jews ;  as  utterly  unsupported  by  scripture  ;  and  as  highly 
mischievous  in  its  tendency. 

No  less  opposed  to  this  principle  is  the  opinion  of  Dr.  Haweis, 
an  Episcopal  Divine,  expressed  in  his  Ecclesiastical  History. 
"  If,  says  he,  the  unfounded  idea,  that  Bishops,  Priests,  and  Dea- 
"  cons,  were  to  succeed  to  the  High  Priest,  Priests,  and  Levites, 
"were  true,  we  must  surely  have  found  some  intimation  of  it  in 
"  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews.  That  men  of  research,"  he  adds, 
"  should  broach  such  puerilities  is  surprising." 

Dr.  Mosheimf  in  his  account  of  the  corruptions  which  began 
to  creep  into  the  Church,  in  the  second  century,  makes  the  follow- 
ing  remarks.  "  The  Christian  Doctors  had  the  good  fortune  to 
"  persuade  the  people,  that  the  ministers  of  the  Christian  Church 
"  succeeded  to  the  character,  rights,  and  privileges  of  the  Jewish 
11  priesthood  y  and  this  persuasion  was  a  new  source  both  ofhon- 
"  ours  and  profits  to  the  sacred  order.  This  notion  was  propa- 
"  gated  with  industry  sometime  after  the  reign  of  Adrian,  when 
u  the  second  destruction  of  Jerusalem  had  extinguished  among  the 
"  Jews  all  hopes  of  seeing  their  government  restored  to  its  former 
"  lustre,  and  their  country  arising  out  of  ruins.  And  accordingly 
"  the  Bishops  considered  themselves  as  invested  with  a  rank  and 
"  character  similar  to  those  of  the  High  Priest  among  the  Jews, 
"  while  the  Presbyters  represented  the  Priests,  and  the  Deacons 
"  the  Levites.  It  is,  indeed,  highly  probable,  that  they  who  first 
'*  introduced  this  absurd  comparison  of  offices  so  entirely  distinct, 
"  did  it  rather  through  ignorance  and  error,  than  through  artifice 
"  or  design.  The  notion,  however,  once  introduced,  produced  its 
"  natural  effects  ;  and  these  effects  were  pernicious." 

But  admitting,  for  a  moment,  that  the  Levitical  priesthood  is  a 
proper  model  for  the  Christian  Ministry;  what  is  the  consequence  ? 
It  follows  inevitably,  that  as  there  was  but  one  High  Priest  over 
the  Jewish  Church,  so  there  ought  to  be  but  one  JSishop  over  the 
the  Christian  Church.  So  far,  then,  as  the  argument  has  any 

*  It  is  generally  known  that  Dr.  Mosheim  was  a  Lutheran  divine,  and 
one  of  the  most  learned  men  of  the  18th  century.  Of  the  work  from 
which  this  quotation  is  made,  Bishop  Warburton  expressed  himself  in 
the  following  terms — "  Mosheim's  Compendium  is  excellent — the  method 
"  admirable—in  short,  it  is  the  only  one  deserving  the  name  of  an  ecclesia»- 
"  Heal  history." 
G 


50  LETTER  HI. 

force,  it  goes  to  the  establishment,  not  of  diocesan  episcopacy,  but 
of  a  Pope,  as  the  sole  vicar  of  Jesus  Christ  upon  earth  and  as  the 
proper  head  of  the  Church.  In  fact,  the  whole  argument  is  bor- 
rowed from  the  Papists,*  who  have  made  the  only  rational  and 
legitimate  use  of  it :  and  indeed  if  the  general  principle  be  admit- 
ted, I  see  not  how  it  is  possible,  in  any  consistency  with  the  analogy 
contended  for,  to  stop  short  of  one  Universal  Bishop. 

It  is  evident,  then,  that  this  fancied  analogy  between  the  Leviti- 
cal  priesthood,  and  the  Christian  ministry,  is  not  only  destitute  of 
all  support  from  Scripture,  but  is  positively  discountenanced  and 
precluded  by  the  New  Testament;  that  if  admitted,  it  would  serve 
the  cause  of  popery,  and  not  that  kind  of  prelacy  for  which  the 
Church  of  England,  and  those  of  the  same  sect  in  this  country, 
contend  ;  and  that  it  is  connected  with  errors,  and  with  a  system 
of  language  directly  calculated  to  lead  men  away  from  the  simpli- 
city of  the  Gospel. 

II.  Another  argument  urged  by  Episcopal  writers  in  favour  of 
their  system,  is— "That  we  actually  find  three  distinct  orders  of 
"  Gospel  ministers  appointed  by  Christ,  or  under  his  authority, 
"  viz.  Apostles,  the  Seventy  Disciples,  and  Deacons  ;  and  that 
"  these  correspond  with  the  diocesan  Bishops,  the  Presbyters,  and 
"the  Deacons  of  their  Church." 

This  argument  may  appear  plausible  to  those  who  have  looked 

*  I  am  aware  that  hints  of  the  least  affinity  between  Episcopacy  and 
Popery,  are  highly  offensive  to  the  friends  of  the  former,  and  have  been 
indignantly  repelled.  I  take  no  pleasure  in  giving  offence;  but  as  the 
fact  in  question  is  certain,  however  seriously  it  may  be  denied;  and  as 
it  is  impossible  to  do  justice  to  the  cause  of  truth  without  stating1  it,  I 
did  not  feel  myself  at  liberty  to  withhold  it.  I  have  said,  that  this  argu- 
ment is  borrowed  from  the  Papists.  No  one  will  understand  my  meaning 
to  be,  that  the  argument  was  not  invented  or  propagated  until  Popery 
had  become  full-grown  and  mature.  The  contrary  is  admitted.  The 
Papacy  had  a  beginning  as  well  as  a  completion.  It  arose  so  gradually 
that  even  candid  men  will  always  dispute  about  the  principal  dates  in 
its  rise,  progress,  and  establishment.  My  meaning1  is,  that  the  artful 
parallel  between  the  Jewish  priesthood  and  the  Christian  ministry,  was 
one  of  the  means  early  employed  by  ambitious  clergymen  to  increase 
their  power;  and  has  been  always  used  by  the  Romish  Church  as  one  of 
the  supports  of  her  superstitious  system. 


TESTIMONY  OF  SCRIPTURE.  51 

only  at  the  surface  of  the  subject ;  but  the  slightest  examination 
will  evince  that  it  is  altogether  fallacious  and  nugatory. 

Who  were   the  seventy  disciples  ?  They  were  a  set  of  men  sent 
out  on  the  same  errand  with  the  twelve  Apostles,  and,  for  aught 
that  appears,  were  vested  with  the  same  powers.  They  were  both 
commanded  to  go  forth  and  proclaim,  that  the  kingdom  of  heaven 
was  at  hand;  they  were  both  endowed  with  the  power  of  working 
miracles  ;  and  no  hint  is  given  that  the  former  were  inferior  to  the 
latter.     (Compare  Matth.  x.  with  Luke  x.)  The  truth  is,  the  first 
commission  even  of  the  twelve  Apostles  was  limited  and  temporary. 
They  were  directed  not  to  go  into  the  way  of  the  Gentiles,  but 
only  to  the  lost  sheep  of  the  house  of  Israel.     This  commission 
terminated  at  the  death  of  Christ ;  and  was,  after  his  resurrection, 
formally  renewed,  and  made  unlimited  both  with  respect  to  time 
and  place.     But  the  Seventy  Disciples  had  no  such  renewal  and 
extension  of  their  commission.     They  are  mentioned  but  once  in 
the  history  of  our  Lord's  ministry  by  the  Evangelists ;  and  after 
his  resurrection,  not  a  syllable  is  said  respecting  them.     Now  as 
the  Jewish  dispensation  did  not  give  place  to  the  Christian  until 
after  the  death  of  Christ,  it  will  inevitably  follow  that  the  seventy 
disciples  were  never,  strictly  speaking,  ministers  of  the  Christian 
Church  at  all ;  but  only  temporary  missionaries,  and  that  under 
the  Old  Testament  dispensation. 

The  force  of  this  reasoning  can  only  be  evaded  by  supposing, 
that  the  first  commission  given  to  the  seventy  disciples  was 
unlimited  both  with  respect  to  its  duration  and  objects.  If  this 
were  so,  then  they  were  superior  to  the  twelve  Apostles,  whose 
first  commission  is  acknowledge  to  have  been  limited  and  tempo- 
rary. But  if  this  were  the  case,  what  becomes  of  the  correspondence 
between  their  office,  and  that  of  Presbyters,  whom  Episcopalians 
constantly  represent  as  inferior  to  Bishops  ?  On  the  other  hand,  if 
the  commission  of  the  seventy  were  temporary,  and  not  afterwards 
renewed,  then  it  will  follow,  that  when  our  Lord  ascended  to 
heaven,  he  left  but  one  order  of  ministers  in  his  Church,  which  is 
precisely  the  fact  for  which  Presbyterians  contend.  Nay,  if  the 
commission  of  the  seventy  were  even  allowed  to  be  unlimited  as  to 
time,  yet  it  was  obviously  confined  to  preaching  the  Gospel  among 
Jews,  and,  of  consequence,  has  nothing  to  do  with  us,  who  are 
of  the  Gentiles.  So  that  whether  their  commission  were  permanent 


52  LETTER  111. 

or  temporary,  it  affords  no  aid  to  the  argument  for  prelacy,  but 
rather  opposes  and  subverts  it.  Until  Episcopalians  prove,  not 
only  that  the  seventy  Disciples  were  sent  on  an  inferior  ministry, 
and  were  vested  with  inferior  powers  to  those  of  the  twelve ;  but 
also  that  their  commission,  as  well  as  that  of  the  twelve,  was 
'  renewed;  and  that  their  Master  left  them  in  office  when  he 
ascended  to  heaven — until  they  prove  both  these,  which  they  never 
have  done,  nor  can  do,  the  attempt  to  derive  any  aid  from  this 
source,  in  vindicating  the  doctrine  of  clerical  imparity,  is 
altogether  vain. 

In  support  of  the  foregoing  remarks,  it  is  easy  to  produce  high 
Episcopal  authority.  Dr.  Whitby  speaks  on  the  subject  in  the 
following  terms. — "  Whereas  some  compare  the  Bishops  to  the 
"  Apostles,  and  the  seventy  to  the  Presbyters  of  the  Church,  and 
"  thence  conclude  that  divers  orders  in  the  ministry  were  instituted 
"  by  Christ  himself,  it  must  be  granted  that  the  ancients  did  believe 
"  these  two  to  be  divers  orders,  and  that  those  of  the  seventy  were 
"  inferior  to  the  order  of  the  Apostles ;  and  sometimes  they  make 
"  the  comparison  here  mentioned  : — But  then  it  must  be  also 
"  granted  that  this  comparison  will  not  strictly  hold ;  for  the 
"  seventy  received  not  their  mission  as  Presbyters  do  from  Bishops, 
"  but  immediately  from  the  Lord  Christ,  as  well  as  the  Apostles; 
"  and  in  their  first  mission  were  plainly  sent  on  the  same  errand, 
"  and  with  the  same  powers." — Notes  on  Luke  x.  1. 

Bishop  Sage,  a  writer  still  more  zealous  for  diocesan  Episcopacy, 
expresses  himself  on  the  same  subject,  in  a  manner  no  less  decisive. 
"The  Apostles,"  says  he,  "got  not  their  commission  to  be 
"  governors  of  the  Christian  Church,  till  after  the  resurrection. 
tl  And  no  wonder,  for  this  their  commission  is  most  observably 
"  recorded,  John  xx.  21,  &c.  No  such  thing  is  any  where  recorded 
«  concerning  the  seventy.  Nothing  is  more  certain  than  that  the 
"  commission  which  is  recorded  Luke  x.  did  constitute  them  only 
"  temporary  missionaries,  and  that  for  an  errand  which  could  not 
"  possibly  be  more  than  temporary.  That  commission  contains 
"  in  its  own  bosom  clear  evidences,  that  it  did  npt  instal  them  in 
"  any  standing  office  at  all,  much  less  in  any  standing  office  in  the 
<*  Christian  Church,  which  was  not  yet  in  being  when  they  got  it. 
"  Could  that  commission  which  is  recorded  Luke  x.  any  more 
"  constitute  the  seventy  standing  officers  of  the  Christian  Church, 


TESTIMONY  OF  SCRIPTURE.  53 

"  than  the  like  commission  recorded  Matthew  x.  could  constitute 
"  the  Twelve  such  standing  officers  ?  But  it  is  manifest  that  the 
"  commission  recorded  Matthew  x.  did  not  constitute  the  twelve 
"  governors  of  the  Christian  Church  ;  otherwise  what  need  of  a 
"new  commission  for  that  purpose  after  the  resurrection? 
"  Presumable,  therefore,  it  is,  that  the  seventy  had  no  successors, 
"office-bearers  in  the  Christian  Church,  seeing  it  is  so  observable 
<c  that  they  themselves  received  no  commission  to  be  such  office- 
"  bearers."* 

And  as  the  seventy  disciples  were  not  permanent  ministers, 
having  ceased  to  be  officers  in  the  Church  long  before  deacons  were 
appointed ;  so  it  is  equally  certain,  that  deacons  are  not  to  be 
considered  as  an  order  of  clergy  at  all ;  and,  of  course,  their  office 
affords  no  countenance  to  the  notion  of  different  grades  among 
ministers  of  the  Gospel.  That  deacons  are  not  an  order  of  clergy, 
as  our  Episcopal  brethren  make  them,  and  consequently  have  no 
right,  as  such,  to  preach  and  baptize,  is  evident,  both  from  the 
account  of  the  original  institution  of  the  office,  and  from  the 
subsequent  statement  of  their  qualifications,  which  we  find  in 
Scripture.  The  account  of  the  institution  of  the  office  of  deacon 
is  in  the  following  words,  Acts  vi.  1—6.  And  in  those  days,  when 
the  number  of  the  disciples  was  multiplied,  there  arose  a  murmur- 
ing of  the  Grecians  against  the  Hebrews,  because  their  widows 
were  neglected  in  the  daily  ministration.  Then  the  twelve  called 
the  multitude  of  the  disciples  unto  them,  and  said,  It  is  not  reason 
that  we  should  leave  the  word  of  God  and  serve  tables.  Wherefore, 
brethren,  look  ye  out  among  you  seven  men  of  honest  report,  full 
of  the  Holy  Ghost  and  wisdom,  whom  we  may  appoint  over  this 
business*  But  we  will  give  ourselves  continually  to  prayer,  and 
to  the  ministry  of  the  word.  And  the  saying  pleased  the  whole 
multitude:  and  they  chose  Stephen,  a  man  full  of  faith  and  of 
the  Holy  Ghost,  and  Philip,  and  Prochorus,  and  Nicanor,  and 
TVmon,  and  Parmenas,  and  Nicolas,  a  proselyte  of  Antioch  ; 
whom  they  set  before  the  Apostles :  and,  when  they  had  prayed, 
they  laid  their  hands  on  them.  I  appeal  to  every  candid  reader 
of  this  passage,  whether  it  is  possible  to  consider  these  persons  as 


•  See  his  Vindication  of  the  Princip.  of  the  Cyprianick  Age.  Chap,  vi 
Sect,  6 


54  LETTER  III. 

commissioned  to  preach  the  Gospel?  Is  there  any  thing  like  it 
mentioned,  or  hinted  at,  in  the  whole  account  ?  Rather,  is  not  the 
contrary  plainly  expressed  ?  Do  not  the  Apostles  expressly  say, 
that  desiring  to  give  themselves  exclusively  to  prayer  and  the 
ministry  of  the  word,  they  wished  to  be  relieved  from  the  care  of 
the  poor,  and  the  service  of  tables  ?  Do  they  not  declare,  that 
attending  to  this  secular  concern  would  render  it  necessary  for  them 
to  leave  the  word  of  God  ?  Are  not  the  deacons  expressly  said  to 
be  appointed  over  this  secular  business?  And  is  it  credible,  after 
all,  that  preaching  and  baptizing  should  be,  either  in  part  or  in 
whole,  their  proper  employment  ?  To  suppose  this  is  to  consider 
the  inspired  Apostles  of  Christ,  as  speaking  and  acting  with  the 
inconsistency  of  children.  No  less  decisive  is  the  language  of  the 
Apostle  Paul  in  stating  to  Timothy  the  qualifications  necessary  for 
this  office.  In  describing  the  proper  qualities  of  a  Bishop  or  Pastor, 
the  Apostle  had,  in  a  preceding  verse,  represented  aptness  to  teach 
as  an  essential  accomplishment ;  but  when  he  proceeds  to  speak  of 
deacons,  he  gives  no  hint  of  any  such  accomplishment,  nor  does 
he  once,  in  the  remotest  manner,  allude  to  public  teaching,  or 
administering  either  of  the  sacraments,  as  a  part  of  their  duty. 

Episcopalians,  indeed,  tell  us,  that  Philip,  one  of  those  who  had 
been  made  a  Deacon  in  Jerusalem,  is  afterwards  represented  as 
preaching  and  baptizing  in  Samaria.  And  hence  they  infer  that 
these  functions  belonged  to  his  office  as  Deacon.  But  they  forget 
that  Philip  is  expressly  called  (Actsxxi.)an  Evangelist;  an  office 
the  leading  and  essential  duty  of  which  is  preaching  the  Gospel. 
The  truth  is,  Philip,  a  short  time  after  being  set  apart  as  a  deacon, 
was  driven  from  Jerusalem,  by  persecution  ;  and  being  no  longer 
able  to  fulfil  the  duties  of  this  office,  it  is  probable  that  some  person 
residing  in  that  city  was  chosen  his  successor,  and  that  he  was 
advanced  to  the  higher  office  of  Evangelist,  and  sent  abroad  to 
preach  the  Gospel.  As  to  Stephen's  disputing  with  the  opposers 
of  the  Christian  faith,  immediately  after  being  appointed  a  Deacon, 
it  is  nothing  to  the  purpose.  This  was  not  preaching  the  Gospel. 
In  fact  it  was  nothing  more  than  every  private  Christian,  in  every 
age,  is  bound  to  do  when  his  faith  is  attacked.  Every  thing,  there- 
fore, found  in  Scripture  on  this  subject,  is  opposed  to  Deacons 
being  considered  as  an  order  of  Clergy  ;  and  in  favour  of  their 


TESTIMONY   OF   SCRIPTURE.  55 

being  regarded,  as  they  are  in  the  Presbyterian  Church  as  officers 
whose  peculiar  business  it  is  to  take  care  of  the  poor. 

It  is  not  denied,  indeed,  that,  as  in  regard  to  other  matters,  so 
with  respect  to  the  Deacon's  office,  encroachment  and  corruption 
soon  began  to  appear  in  the  Church ;  and  that  he  who  was  origi- 
nally appointed  to  take  care  of  the  poor,  and  "  serve  tables,"  began, 
in  some  parts  of  the  Christian  Church,  as  early  as  the  third  and 
fourth  centuries,  to  be  a  preacher  and  baptizer.  But  we  have 
abundant  evidence  that  this  was  considered,  even  on  the  part  of  at 
least  some  of  those  who  record  the  fact,  as  a  departure  from  the 
primitive  model.  Origen  (Tract.  15  in  Matt.)  does  by  no  means 
express  himself  as  if  he  believed  preaching  and  baptizing  to  be  the 
appropriate  work  of  the  Deacon.  "  Those  Deacons,"  says  he, 
"  who  do  not  manage  well  the  money  of  the  Churches  committed 
"  to  their  care,  but  act  a  fraudulent  part,  and  dispense  it,  not 
"  according  to  justice,  but  for  the  purpose  of  enriching  themselves ; 
"  these  act  the  part  of  money  changers,  and  keepers  of  those  tables 
"  which  our  Lord  overturned."  Hilary  says,  concerning  the  fourth 
century :  "  The  deacons  do  not  publicly  preach."  Comment,  in 
Ephes.  4.  In  the  Apostolical  Constitutions,  which,  though  un- 
doubtedly spurious  as  an  apostolical  work,  may  probably  be 
referred  to  the  fourth  or  fifth  centuries,  it  is  recorded,  (Lib.  8. 
cap.  tilt.)  "  Jt  is  not  lawful  for  the  deacons  to  baptize,  or  to 
"  administer  the  Eucharist,  or  to  pronounce  the  greater  or  smaller 
"  benediction."  Jerome,  in  his  letter  to  Evagrius,  calls  deacons 
ministers  of  tables  and  of  widows.  And  OecumeniuSj  a  learned 
commentator,  who  lived  several  centuries  after  Jerome,  in  his  com- 
mentary on  Acts  vi.  expresses  himself  thus — *'  The  Apostles  laid 
"  their  hands  on  those  who  were  chosen  deacons,  not  to  confer 
"  on  them  that  rank  which  they  now  hold  in  the  Church,  but  that 
"  they  might,  with  all  diligence  and  attention,  distribute  the  neces- 
"  saries  of  life  to  widows  and  orphans."  Nothing  can  be  clearer, 
then,  from  the  testimony  of  Scripture,  and  of  early  antiquity,  than 
that  the  deacon's  office  had,  originally,  nothing  to  do  with  preach- 
ing or  baptizing  ;  and  that  investing  him  with  these  powers  is  an 
unwarrantable  departure  from  the  primitive  model. 

Of  the  three  orders,  then,  contended  for  in  this  argument,  there 
remains  but  one,  viz.  the  Apostles,  who  received  a  permanent  com- 
mission to  be  ministers  of  the  Gospel,  and  who,  in  this  character, 


56  LETTER  III. 

are  to  be  considered  as  having  successors.  The  seventy  disciples 
had  ceased  to  exist,  as  officers  in  the  Church,  a  considerable  time 
before  the  Deacons  were  appointed  ;  and  it  is  trampling  upon  every 
intimation  of  Scripture  on  the  subject,  to  make  the  latter  an  order 
of  clergy  at  all.  The  favourite  Episcopal  doctrine,  therefore,  of 
clerical  imparity,  receives  not  the  least  countenance  from  this 
boasted  argument. 

It  is  impossible  not  to  observe  the  difficulties  to  which  our 
Episcopal  brethren  are  reduced,  in  endeavouring  to  show,  on  their 
own  principles,  that  three  orders  of  clergy  have  been  maintained 
at  every  period.  Considering  the  twelve  Apostles  and  the  seventy 
disciples,  as  two  distinct  orders  appointed  by  our  Lord  before  his 
crucifixion,  they  have  thought  themselves  bound  to  find  a  third 
order,  during  that  period.  And  what  expedient  do  you  suppose 
they  have  adopted  to  make  out  their  beloved  number  ?  Why, 
some  of  them  gravely  tell  us  that  Christ  himself  was  one  of  the  or- 
ders of  Clergy  at  that  time  !  I  will  not  so  far  insult  your  under- 
standings, Brethren,  as  to  attempt  a  refutation  of  this  idea.  But 
if  this  were  the  case,  then,  to  say  nothing  of  other  objections,  the 
Apostles  stood  in  the  place  of  Presbyters,  which  is  contrary  to 
the  Episcopal  system.  Besides,  where  will  the  zealous  advocates 
for  the  doctrine  of  three  orders  find  their  favourite  number,  even  on 
their  ownp principles,  immediately  after  the  ascension  of  Christ, 
when  the  Deacons  had  not  been  appointed,  and  when  we  hear  no 
more  about  the  seventy  disciples  ? 

III.  Closely  connected  with  the  foregoing  argument  is  another, 
which  is  urged  with  great  confidence  by  many  episcopal  writers. 
It  is  :  "  That  the  apostles,  while  they  lived,  held  a  station  in  the 
"Church  superior  to  all  other  ministers;  that  Bishops  are  the 
"  proper  successors  of  the  apostles  ;  and  that  they  hold  a  corres- 
"  ponding  superiority  of  character  and  office." 

If  this  argument  be  examined,  it  will  be  found  to  have  no  other 
force  than  that  which  consists  in  a  mere  gratuitous  assertion  of  the 
point  to  be  proved. 

The  ministry  of  the  Apostles  was,  in  some  repects,  extraordinary, 
and  of  course  terminated  with  their  lives.  In  other  respects,  it  was 
ordinary,  and  transmitted  to  their  successors.  Considering  them 
in  the  former  light,  as  men  distinguished  by  the  extraordinary  gifts 


TESTIMONY   OF  SCRIPTURE.  57 

of  the  Holy  Ghost ;  as  endowed  with  immediate  inspiration,  with 
the  knowledge  of  tongues,  with  the  power  of  discerning  spirits,  and 
working  miracles,  and  of  conferring  that  power  en  others;  and  as 
invested  with  authority  to  order  every  thing  relating  to  the  Churches 
of  Christ,  under  the  unerring  guidance  of  the  Spirit  of  God,  until 
the  canon  of  Scripture,  the  grand  charter  and  directory  of  the 
Church,  should  be  completed  ;  considering  them  in  this  character, 
the  apostles  had  no  successors.  They  were  exalted  above  all 
bishops.  Their  character  was  strictly  personal  and  incommunicable. 
The  scriptures  give  no  hint  of  any  class  of  ministers  coming 
after  them,  to  be  endowed  with  a  similar  character ;  and  until 
those  who  claim  something  like  Apostolic  pre-eminence  produce 
satisfactory  testimonials  that  they  possess  similar  gifts  and  powers, 
they  must  excuse  us  for  rejecting  their  claims. 

Considering  the  ministry  of  the  apostles  in  those  respects  in 
which  it  was  ordinary  and  perpetual,  they  had,  and  still  have, 
successors ;  and  nothing  is  more  easy  than  to  show  that  these 
successors  consist  of  all  those,  without  exception,  who  are  empow- 
ered to  go  forth  and  teach  men  the  way  of  salvation,  baptizing 
them  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy 
Ghost ;  that  is,  all  regular  ministers,  who  are  clothed  with  authority 
to  preach  the  Gospel  and  administer  sacraments.  For  it  was  in 
immediate  connexion  with  the  command  to  perform  these  ordinary 
functions,  that  the  promise,  which  is  considered  as  constituting 
the  ministerial  succession,  was  given — Lo  /  am  with  you  always, 
even  unto  the  end  of  the  world.  Could  the  advocates  of  episcopacy 
show  from  Scripture,  that  the  powers  possessed  by  the  apostles 
were  afterwards  divided;  that,  while  one  class  of  ministers 
succeeded  them  in  the  ordinary  duties  of  preaching  and  administer- 
ing sacraments,  another  class  succeeded  them  in  some  higher  and 
more  appropriate  duties  ;  their  cause  would  rest  on  better  ground  ; 
but  this,  as  was  before  observed,  can  never  be  proved.  There  is 
not  a  syllable  in  Scripture  that  looks  like  such  a  divided  succession  ; 
nor  has  it  ever  been  so  much  as  pretended  that  a  passage  is  to  be 
found  which  gives  a  hint  of  this  kind.  On  the  contrary,  as  has 
been  repeatedly  before  mentioned,  the  Scriptures  uniformly  repre- 
sent preaching  the  Gospel,  and  administering  sacraments,  as  the 
most  important  and  honourable  of  all  ministerial  functions. 

Accordingly,  when  we  ask  those  who  adduce  this  argument, 
H 


58  LETTER  lit 

whence  they  derive  the  idea  that  diocesan  bishops  peculiarly 
succeed  the  apostles  in  their  apostolic  character,  (for  this  supposition 
alone  is  to  their  purpose,)  they  refer  us  to  no  passages  of  Scripture 
asserting  or  even  hinting  it  ;  but  to  some  vague  suggestions,  and 
allusions  of  a  few  of  the  early  Fathers.  Now,  on  such  a  subject, 
even  if  the  Fathers  were  unanimous,  we  might  and  ought  to  hesitate, 
if  nothing  like  what  they  intimate  were  to  be  found  in  the  word  of 
God.  But  it  ought  to  be  known  and  remembered,  that  the  Fathers 
contradict  one  another,  and  the  same  Fathers  contradict  them- 
selves on  this  subject.  Several  of  them  expressly  represent 
presbyters  as  the  successors  of  the  apostles.  Among  others, 
Ignatius,  than  whom  no  Father  is  more  highly  esteemed,  or  more 
frequently  quoted  as  an  authority  by  Episcopalians,  generally 
represents  presbyters  as  standing  in  the  place  of  the  apostles.  The 
following  quotations  are  from  his  far-famed  Epistles.  "  The 
"  presbyters  succeed  in  the  place  of  the  bench  of  the  Apostles." 
"  In  like  manner  let  all  reverence  the  deacons  as  Jesus  Christ,  and 
"  the  bishop  as  the  Father,  and  the  presbyters  as  the  sanhedrim  of 
"  God,  and  college  of  the  apostles."  "  Be  subject  to  your  presbyters 
"  as  to  the  apostles  of  Jesus  Christ  our  hope."  "  Follow  the 
"  Presbytery  as  the  apostles,"  &c.*  Other  quotations  from  the 
Fathers  might  easily  be  adduced,  equally  pointed  and  decisive 
against  the  argument  in  question  ;  but  these  are  reserved  for  a 
subsequent  letter. 

But  still  the  advocates  of  diocesan  episcopacy  ask :  "  Do  not 
"  the  Apostles,  in  many  passages  of  the  New  Testament,  mani- 
"  festly  assert  their  superiority  over  other  ministers  ?  Do  we  not 
"  find  them  exercising  jurisdiction  over  uninspired  pastors;  direct- 
"  ing  them  how  to  behave  themselves  in  the  house  of  God;  and, 
"  in  short,  authoritatively  ordering  the  conduct  of  ministers,  and 
"  the  affairs  of  the  Churches?  Now,  say  they,  if  the  Apostles 
"  had  any  successors  in  the  exercise  of  this  general  jurisdiction 
"  over  other  ministers,  these  successors  can  be  no  other  than  our 
"  diocesan  Bishops,  who  are  constituted  governors  of  the  inferior 
"  clergy ;  which  is  precisely  the  point  for  which  we  contend." 
To  this  reasoning  I  answer,  the  Apostles  did  possess,  and  did 

*  The  testimony  of  Ignatius  will  hereafter  be  noticed.  The  single 
object  of  these  quotations  is  to  show  that  he  represents  the  presbyters 
as  successors  of  the  apostles. 


TESTIMONY   OF  SCRIPTURE.  59 

exercise  the  general  power  of  jurisdiction  and  superintendency 
which  has  been  stated.  In  the  infancy  of  the  Church  it  was 
necessary  that  they  should  do  so.  Being  under  the  immediate 
guidance  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  they  were  to  the  primitive  Churches 
what  the  New  Testament  is  to  us,  the  only  infallible  standard.  But 
does  it  follow  that  they  must  have  successors  in  this  paramount 
authority  over  other  ministers,  after  the  sacred  canon  was  com- 
pleted, and  the  reason  of  their  extraordinary  powers  had  ceased  ? 
Besides,  let  us  attend  to  the  consequences  to  which  the  Episcopal 
reasoning  on  this  subject  will  conduct  us.  The  Apostles,  it  is 
granted,  gave  authoritative  instruction,  or,  if  you  please,  exercised 
jurisdiction  over  the  Churches  and  ministers  which  they  had  con- 
stituted. Among  others,  this  apostolic  authority  was  exercised 
over  Timothy,  Titus,  and  Epaphroditus,  whom  all  Episcopalians 
consider  as  diocesan  Bishops.  In  fact  it  would  be  difficult  to  select 
individual  ministers  over  whom  apostolic  authority  and  direction 
were  more  remarkably  exercised  than  over  these.  Now,  we  ask 
the  advocates  of  episcopacy,  Was  this  authoritative  control  over 
these  Bishops,  the  exercise  of  an  ordinary,  or  of  an  extraordinary 
power?  If  they  say,  of  an  extraordinary  power,  then  they  give 
up  the  argument ;  for,  on  the  same  principles,  we  may  and  do 
contend,  that  the  whole  jurisdiction  of  the  Apostles  over  other 
ministers  of  the  Gospel,  arose  from  their  extraordinary  character, 
and  the  particular  situation  of  the  Church,  and  expired  with  them. 
If,  on  the  other  hand,  they  say,  that  this  was  the  exercise  of  an 
ordinary  power,  then  it  must  inevitably  follow,  that  there  is  a 
divine  warrant  for  a  permanent  order  of  ministers,  in  the  Christian 
Church,  superior  to  bishops,  and  invested  with  authority  over 
them;  thus  making  four  instead  of  three  orders  of  clergy.  It  is 
not  possible  to  avoid  one  or  the  other  of  these  conclusions;  and 
they  are  equally  destructive  to  the  episcopal  system. 

Accordingly,  the  whole  argument  for  the  superiority  of  Bishops 
drawn  from  their  being  considered  as  the  proper  and  exclusive 
successors  of  the  apostles  in  their  official  pre-eminence,  has  been 
pronounced  invalid,  and  wholly  abandoned  by  some  of  the  most 
distinguished  writers  of  the  Church  of  England.  In  this  list  are 
the  names  of  Dr.  Barrow,  Mr.  Dodwell,  Bishop  Hoadly,  and  others 
of  equal  eminence. 

The  judgment  of  the  very  learned  and  able  Episcopalian,  Dr. 


00  LETTER  III. 

Barrow  is  too  decisive  to  pass  unnoticed.  The  following  quota- 
tion is  from  his  celebrated  treatise  on  the  Pope's  supremacy ;  and 
although  his  main  object  is  to  refute  the  Papists;  yet  it  is  remark- 
able that  the  very  same  reasoning  by  which  the  Popish  claim  of 
apostolical  succession  is  set  aside,  is  also  fatal  to  a  claim  substan- 
tially similar,  advanced  by  Protestant  high-churchmen.  The 
Doctor  speaks  thus  :  "  The  apostolical  office,  as  such,  was  personal 
"  and  temporary  ;  and  therefore,  according  to  its  nature  and  design, 
"  not  successive,  nor  communicable  to  others,  in  perpetual  de- 
"  scendence  from  them.  It  was,  as  such,  in  all  respects  extraor- 
"  dinary,  conferred  in  a  special  manner,  designed  for  special 
"  purposes,  discharged  by  special  aids,  endowed  with  special 
u  privileges,  as  was  needful  for  the  propagation  of  Christianity, 
"  |ind  founding  of  churches.  To  that  office,  it  was  requisite  that 
"  the  person  should  have  an  immediate  designation  and  com-v 
"  mission  from  God  :  that  he  should  be  endowed  with  miraculous 
"  gifts  and  graces,  enabling  him  both  to  assure  his  authority,  and 
"  to  execute  his  office:  that  he  should  be  able,  according  to  his 
"  discretion,  to  impart  spiritual  gifts :  and  that  he  should  govern  in 
"  an  absolute  manner,  as  being  guided  by  infallible  assistance,  to 
"  which  he  might  appeal,  &c. — Now  such  an  office,  consisting  of 
"  so  many  extraordinary  privileges  and  miraculous  powers,  which 
"  were  requisite  for  the  foundation  of  the  Church,  and  the  diffusion 
"  of  Christianity,  against  the  manifold  difficulties  and  disadvantages 
"  which  it  then  needs  must  encounter,  was  not  designed  to  continue 
"  by  derivation ;  for  it  contained  in  it  divers  things,  which  appa- 
"  rently  were  not  communicated,  and  which  no  man  wifhout  gross 
"  imposture  and  hypocrisy  could  challenge  to  himself.'*  P.  79,  &c. 

IV.  A  fourth  argument  urged  by  the  advocates  of  Episcopacy, 
is  :  "  That  Timothy  and  Titus  were  each  appointed  to  the  fixed 
"  superintendency  of  a  large  diocese,  the  former  over  Ephesus,  the 
"  latter  over  Crete;  that  the  duties  required  of  them,  and  the 
"  powers  vested  in  them,  were  evidently  superior  to  those  of  ordi- 
"  nary  Presbyters :  in  a  word,  that  they  were  no  other  than  proper 
"  diocesan  Bishops." 

This  argument  is  a  cornerstone  of  the  Episcopal  fabric,  adduced 
with  much  zeal,  and  relied  on  with  the  utmost  confidence,  by  most 
of  the  advocates  of  prelacy. 


TESTIMONY   OF  SCRIPTURE.  61 

II  is  unfortunate,  however,  that  all  the  premises  from  which  the 
conclusion  is  drawn,  are  assumed,  without  any  satisfactory,  or  even 
plausible  evidence.     How  does  it  appear  that  Timothy  and  Titus 
were  Bishops,  in  the  Episcopal  sense  of  the  word  ?     They  are  no 
where,  in  Scripture,  called  by  this  name.     Timothy,  on  the  con- 
trary, is  expressly  styled  an  Evangelist.  2  Tim.  iv.  5.    And  it  is 
probable,  that  Titus,  being  called  to  similar  duties,  bore  the  same 
character.     Now  what  is  meant  by  an  Evangelist  ?    He  was  an 
officer,  says  Eusebius,  appointed  f<  to  lay  the  foundations  of  the 
"  faith,  in  barbarous  nations,  to  constitute  them  pastors,  and  having 
"  committed  to  them  the  cultivating  of  those  new  plantations,  to 
"  pass  on  to  other  countries  and  nations."*     No  description  can 
apply  more  perfectly  to  the  work  assigned  to  Timothy  and  Tilust 
as  every  one  who  looks  into  the  sacred  history  must  instantly  per- 
ceive.    They  were  not  settled  pastors,  but  itinerant  missionaries. 
They  sustained  no  fixed  or  permanent  relation  to  the  Churches  of 
Ephesus  or  Crete  ;  and  amidst  their  numerous  and  almost  constant 
travels,  were  probably  as  long,  and  perhaps  longer,  in  other  places 
than  in  these.     As  for  Titus,  Dr.  Whitby  himself  acknowledges, 
that  "  he  was  only  left  at  Crete  to  ordain  elders  in  every  city,  and 
"  lo  set  in  order  the  things  that  were  wanting  ;  and  that,  having 
"  done  that  work,  he  had  done  all  that  was  assigned  him  in  that 
"  station;  and,  therefore,  St.  Paul  sends  for  him  the  very  next 
"  year  to  Nicopolis.  Titus  iii.  12. "  And  with  respect  to  Timothy, 
the  same  learned  Episcopal  writer  also  confesses,  that  "  there  is  no 
"  satisfactory  evidence  of  his  having  resided  longer  at  Ephesus, 
"  than  was  necessary  to  execute  a  special  and  temporary  mission 
"  to  the  Church  in  that  place."  Prefaced  his  Comment,  on  Titus. 
Some  Episcopalians,  of  slender  information,  have  triumphed, 
because  in  our  common  Bibles,  at  the  close  of  the  second  epistle  to 
Timothy,  there  is  a  Postscript,  in   the    following   words:  The 
second  epistle  unto  Timotheus,  ordained  the  first  bishop  of  the 
Church  of  the  Ephesians,  was  written  from  Rome,  when  Paul  was 

*  After  quoting-  an  authority  so  often  referred  to  by  Episcopalians,  and 
so  high  in  their  estimation  as  that  of  Eusebius,  I  will  add,  that  the  word 
Evangelist  is  still  used  in  the  Presbyterian  Church,  and  with  the  same 
sense  attached  to  it  as  in  the  days  of  Eusebius.  Among  us,  an  ordained 
minister,  who  has  no  pastoral  charge,  and  who  itinerates  to  preach  the 
gospel  in  regions  which  are  destitute  of  it,  is  called  an  Evangelist. 


62  LETTER  III. 

brought  before  Nero  the  second  time.  And,  also,  at  the  close  of 
the  epistle  to  Titus,  a  similar  postscript,  importing  that  Titus  was 
the  first  bishop  of  Crete.  But  it  is  well  known  that  these  postscripts 
make  no  part  of  the  sacred  text.  It  is  acknowledged,  by  all 
learned  men,  that  they  were  interpolated,  by  some  officious 
transcribers,  more  than  400  years  after  the  Christian  sera.  They 
are  not  to  be  found  in  any  of  the  oldest  and  most  authentic  copies 
of  the  original.  They  are  not  the  same  in  all  the  copies  in  which 
they  are  found.  They  were  solemnly  excluded  from  the  earliest 
English  translations  ;  and,  for  a  long  time  after  their  introduction, 
they  were  generally  printed  in  a  different  type  from  the  inspired 
text,  in  order  to  show  that  they  form  no  part  of  the  sacred  canon. 
Of  course,  as  all  Episcopal  writers  of  respectability  acknowledge, 
they  afford  no  evidence  which  deserves  the  least  attention  in  the 
case  before  us. 

But  if  there  be  no  evidence  that  Timothy  and  Titus  were 
diocesan  Bishops,  either  in  the  sacred  text,  or  in  the  spurious 
interpolations,  which,  by  ignorant  persons,  have  been  sometimes 
mistaken  for  it;  whence,  you  will  ask,  has  this  notion,  so  confi- 
dently maintained  by  episcopal  writers,  taken  its  rise  ?  It  seems  to 
have  been  first  suggested  by  Eusebius,  in  the  fourth  century,  as  a 
thing  which  tradition  "  reported"  in  his  day,  but  of  which  he 
found  no  certain  record  5*  and  after  him  this  tradition  has  been 
servilely  copied,  and  assumed  as  a  fact  by  a  succession  of  writers. 
Dr.  Whilby,  notwithstanding  all  his  zeal  for  episcopacy,  speaks  on 
the  subject  in  this  manner.  "  The  great  controversy  concerning 
"  this,  and  the  epistles  to  Timothy  is,  whether  Timothy  and  Titus 
"  were  indeed  made  bishops,  the  one  of  Ephesus,  and  the  procon- 
"  sular  Asia  ;  the  other  of  Crete.  Now  of  this  matter  I  confess  I 
"  can  find  nothing  in  any  writer  of  thejirst  three  centuries,  nor 
"  any  intimation  that  they  bore  that  name."  And  afterwards  he 

*  Eusebius,  in  the  first  chapter  of  his  History,  speaking  of  the  difficulties 
of  his  undertaking,  and  of  the  small  assistance  he  could  gain  from  any 
preceding1  writers,  expresses  himself  thus:  "  Being  the  first  who  have 
"  taken  in  hand  this  work,  we  enter  on  a  solitary  and  untrodden  way, 
"praying  that  God  may  be  our  guide,  and  the  power  of  our  Lord  and 
"  Saviour  our  help  ;  yet  we  cannot  find  even  the  bare  footsteps  of  any 
"  who  have  trodden  this  path  before  us.  We  find  only  a  few  small  and 
"  scattered  narratives  of  which  we  can  avail  ourselves,  &c."  Again,  iu 


TESTIMONY  OF  SCRIPTURE.  63 

adds,  generally  concerning  the  whole  argument—"  f  confess  that 
"  these  two  instances,  absolutely  taken,  afford  us  no  convincing 
"  arguments  in  favour  of  a  settled  diocesan  episcopacy,  because 
"  there  is  nothing  which  proves  they  did  or  were  to  exercise  these 
"  acts  of  government  rather  as  bishops  than  as  Evangelists?* 

But  it  is  still  urged,  that  some  of  the  powers  represented  itv 
Scripture  as  given  to  Timothy  and  Titus  clearly  indicate  a 
superiority  of  order.  Thus  Paul  besought  the  former  to  abide 
still  at  Ephesus,  and  gave  him  directions  with  regard  to  the 
selection  and  ordination  of  ministers.  And  he  also  appointed  the 
latter  to  ordain  elders  in  every  city  of  Crete,  giving  him,  at  the 
same  time,  particular  instructions  as  to  the  manner  in  which  he 
should  exercise  his  ordaining  power,  and  set  in  order  the  things 
that  were  wanting.  "  Here,"  say  the  advocates  for  episcopacy, "  we 
"  find  in  fact  the  pre-eminent  powers  of  diocesan  Bishops  vested 
"in  these  men;  and  as  long  as  they  possessed  the  powers  of 
"  bishops,  it  is  of  small  moment  by  what  name  they  were  called." 


"the  fourth  chapter  of  his  third  book,  he  speaks  as  follows:  "That 
"Paul,  preaching  to  the  Gentiles,  planted  the  Churches  from  Jerusalem 
"  to  Illyricum,  is  manifest  both  by  his  own  words,  and  the  testimony  of 
"Zw&einthe  Acts  of  the  Apostles.  Also  in  what  provinces  Peter  preached 
"  to  those  of  the  circumcision,  and  delivered  the  doctrine  of  the  New 
"  Testament,  appears,  most  evidently,  by  the  Epistle  universally  ascribed 
"to  him,  which  he  addressed  to  the  Hebrews  that  were  scattered 
"throughout  Pontus,  Galatia,  Cappadocia,  Asia,  and  Bithynia.  Bat 
"how  many,  and  what  sincere  imitators  of  the  apostles,  governed  the 
"  churches  planted  by  them,  it  is  not  easy  to  say,  except  so  far  as  may 
"  be  gathered  from  the  words  of  the  apostle  himself.  Timothy  is 
"  reported  to  have  been  the  first  Bishop  of  the  Parish  of  Ephesus,  and 
Titus  of  the  Churches  of  Crete,"  &c.  Language  of  this  kind  plainly 
shows  that  Eusebius  had  very  few  and  uncertain  guides  after  he  left  the 
New  Testament.  He  lived  in  a  day  when  clerical  imparity  had  made 
considerable  progress  ;  and,  of  course,  tradition  would  be  apt  to  attach 
the  same  ideas  to  the  character  of  a  Bishop  in  the  apostle's  days,  as 
actually  belonged  to  it  in  the  fourth  century.  But  still,  though  the  title 
of  Bishop  meant  one  thing  in  the  days  of  Timothy,  and  quite  another  in 
the  days  Eusebius  ,•  he  and  others  thought  themselves  warranted  in 
applying  the  popular  language  to  those  primitive  ministers.  Let  it  never 
be  forgotten,  however,  that  Episcopalians  with  one  voice  admit  that  the 
title  of  Bishop  is  applied  in  Scripture  to  the  Pastors  of  particular 
churches. 


64  LETTER  III. 

But  on  this  argument  several  remarks  immediately  occur,  which 
entirely  destroy  its  force. 

The  first  is,  that  even  if  we  allow  Timothy  and  Titus  to  have 
held  such  a  superior  ecclesiastical  rank,  as  that  for  which  Episcopa- 
lians contend,  still  no  certain  argument  can  be  drawn  from  their 
case  in  favour  of  an  established  arrangement  in  the  church.  That 
they  sustained  a  character  in  some  respects  extraor 'dinar -y,  and 
were  called  to  act  on  occasions  in  some  respects  out  of  the  common 
course,  none  will  deny.  Are  we  sure  that,  in  these  respects,  their 
mission  is  to  be  a  precedent  for  us  ?  Because  officers  of  a  certain 
character  were  sent,  on  a  particular  occasion,  to  organize  churches, 
and  to  ordain  ministers,  in  Eyhesus  and  Crete,  does  it  follow, 
upon  any  principle  of  legitimate  reasoning,  that  officers  of  precisely 
the  same  character  are  indispensably  necessary  in  all  countries  and 
in  all  ages  to  perform  a  similar  service?  Because  the  Apostle 
Paul  in  fact  partook  with  other  ministers  in  several  ordinations? 
are  we  to  infer  that  no  ordination  was  valid,  while  the  apostles 
lived,  unless  one  of  them  was  present,  and  participated  in  the 
transaction  ?  By  no  means.  We  know  that  the  inference  would 
be  false.  For  we  read  that  Timothy  and  Titus,  who  were  certainly 
subordinate  to  Paul,  and  who  received  commands  and  instructions 
from  him  as  their  superior,  were  sent  on  an  ordaining  tour.  We 
read  that  certain  Prophets  and  Teachers,  at  Antioch,  such  as 
Simeon,  Lucius,  and  Manaen,  who  were  of  a  different  description 
of  ministers  from  either  of  the  former,  still  possessed  the  ordaining 
power;  and  that  Timothy  himself  was  ordained  by  the  laying  on 
of  the  hands  of  Presbyters.  In  short,  they  are  four  classes  of 
of  Gospel  ministers,  ordinary  and  extraordinary,  mentioned  in 
the  New  Testament,  viz.  Apostles,  Evangelists,  Prophets,  and 
Teachers,  or  Presbyters.  These  different  titles,  it  is  granted  on 
all  hands,  were  intended  to  indicate  some  diversity  of  station  and 
employment  in  the  Apostolic  age.  But  however  they  differed 
among  themselves  with  respect  to  their  endowments  and  qualifica- 
tions, we  find  that  they  all  possessed  alike  the  power  of  setting 
apart  others  to  the  work  of  the  ministry,  and  actually  ordained. 
Nay.  an  instance  precisely  in  point  occurs  in  the  'history  of 
the  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States.  In  the  consecra- 
tion of  the  first  bishops  for  that  church,  the  Archbishop  of 
Canterbury  presided.  Yet  we  all  know  that  the  presence  and 


TESTIMONY  OF  SCRIPTURE.  65 

co-operation  of  the  primate  were  not  necessary,  either  to 
the  validity  or  regularity  of  the  consecration.  Three  ordinary 
bishops  would  have  done  just  as  well.  Yet  if  some  zealous 
hierarchist,  a  thousand  years  hence,  should  insist,  that  because  he 
was  present,  the  consecration  could  not  have  taken  place  without 
him ;  the  argument  would  have  just  as  much  force  as  that  which  we 
are  now  considering.  Yielding  the  whole  fact,  then,  concerning  the 
character  of  Timothy  and  Titus,  for  which  our  episcopal  brethren 
contend,  it  does  not  afford  the  least  help  to  their  cause.  It  no  more 
proves  that  precisely  such  officers  are  necessary  to  the  performance 
of  every  valid  ordination,  in  every  subsequent  age,  than  the 
consecration  of  the  first  High  Priest,  under  the  Old  Testament 
dispensation,  by  Moses,  rendered  it  necessary  that  every  succeeding 
induction  of  the  same  officer  should  be  performed  by  a  similar 
person,  and  with  similar  ceremonies ;  which  we  know  was  neither 
required  nor  done.* 

But,  secondly — We  utterly  deny  that  Timothy  was  sent  to 
Ephesus,  and  Titus  to  Crete,  in  any  such  character  as  our  episcopal 
brethren  claim  for  them.  We  have  seen  that  the  fact,  if  admitted, 
would  be  useless  to  their  cause.  But  it  is  not  admitted,  and  cannot 
be  proved.  To  say,  that  the  very  circumstance  of  being  sent  to 
ordain  ministers,  and  to  organize  churches,  shows  that  they  acted 
in  virtue  of  a  superior  episcopal  character,  every  discerning  reader 
will  perceive  is  not  proof,  but  merely  taking  for  granted  the  whole 
point  in  dispute.  In  truth,  the  whole  argument,  drawn  from  the 
mission  of  Timothy  and  Titus,  when  carefully  analysed,  and 
distinctly  stated,  amounts  to  this — "  None  but  diocesan  bishops,  as 
"  a  superior  order  of  clergy,  have  a  right  to  ordain  ministers,  and 
u  organize  Churches :  but  Timothy  and  Titus,  were  sent  to  perform 
"  services  of  this  kind :  therefore  Timothy  and  Titus  were  diocesan 
"  bishops."  In  this  syllogism,  the  major  proposition,  viz.  that 
which  asserts  that  none  but  bishops,  as  a  superior  order,  can  ordain, 
is  taken  for  granted.  But  does  not  every  one  see  that  this  is  precisely 

*  Perhaps  it  will  be  objected  that  this  argument  proves  too  much,  and 
may  be  made,  by  pressing-  it  a  little  further,  to  support  the  cause  of  lay- 
ordinations.  By  no  means.  For  though  different  descriptions  of 
ministers,  both  ordinary  and  extraordinary,  ordained  in  the  days  of  the 
apostles',  yet  we  read  of  no  ordination  but  what  was  performed  by 
ministers  of  some  kind. 
I 


66  LETTER  III. 

the  point  to  be  proved  ?  Until  this  fundamental  proposition,  then, 
be  first  established,  the  whole  aigumeni  is  such  as  all  logicians  agree 
in  stigmatizing  as  deceptive  and  worthless. 

Thirdly — We  know  not  that  there  were  any  Church  officers 
ordained,  either  at  Ephesus  or  Crete*,  previous  to  the  mission  of 
Timothy  and  Titus  to  those  Churches,  The  advocates  for  Epis- 
copacy, I  know,  take  the  liberty  of  supposing  that  there  were  Pres- 
byters already  ord'-iined  and  residing  at  both  those  places,  before 
the  period  in  question.  And  hence  they  conclude  that  Presbyters 
were  not  considered  by  the  Apostle  as  lawfully  vested  with  the 
power  of  ordaining,  "  or  else,"  say  they,  "  he  would  not  have 
"  thought  it  necessary  to  send  superior  officers  so  great  a  distance, 
"  to  perform  this  work."  But  this  supposition  is  made  wholly 
without  evidence.  The  probability  is,  that  there  were  no  such 
Presbyters  prior  to  the  arrival  of  Timothy  and  Titus:  and  until 
the  friends  of  Episcopacy  prove  that  there  were,  the  whole  argu- 
ment on  which  they  build  so  much,  falls  to  the  ground.  The 
Gospel  had,  indeed,  been  preached,  and  great  numbers  converted, 
both  at  Ephesus  and  Crete,  a  considerable  time  before ;  but  we 
have  no  evidence  that  any  ecclesiastical  organization  or  appoint- 
ments had,  as  yet,  taken  place,t  and  if  so,  then  it  was  surely  neces- 
sary to  send  spec/a/missionaries,  to  commence  ecclesiastical  order, 
where  every  thing  was  in  a  rude  and  unorganized  state  :  If  there 
were  no  Presbyters  already  ordained  and  residing  in  those  Churches, 
it  is  obvious  that  sending  others  to  perform  what  was  necessary, 
does  not  afford  the  slightest  presumption  against  the  ordaining 
power  of  Presbyters. 


*  Archbishop  Potter,  one  of  the  highest  authorities  among  Episco- 
palians, concedes  that  we  have  no  reason  to  believe  there  were  any 
ministers  ordained  at  Crete,  prior  to  the  mission  of  Titus  to  that  place, 
See  Discourse  of  Ch.  Guv.  p.  91,  92,  &c.  This  simple  concession,  when 
traced  to  its  legitimate  consequences,  amounts,  so  far  as  Titus  is  con- 
cerned, to  a  surrender  of  the  whole  argument. 

•f-  "  One  qualification  for  a  Bishop  was,  that  he  should  not  be  a  novice 
"  that  is,  one  newly  converted  ;  time  being  required  to  prove  men 
"  before  they  could  be  intrusted  with  the  care  of  the  church:  and 
"  therefore  the  apostles  used  not  to  ordain  ministers  in  any  place 
"  before  the  second  time  of  their  coming  thither."  Potter's  Disc. 
ofCh.  Gov.p.91. 


TESTIMONY  OF   SCRIPTURE.  67 

But,  fourthly — Admitting,  for  the  sake  of  argument,  that  there 
were  Presbyters  ordained,  and  residing,  both  at  Ephesusand  Crete, 
previous  to  the  respective  missions  of  Timothy  and  Titus,  still  no 
advantage  to  the  Episcopal  cause  can  be  derived  from  this  conces- 
sion.    We  learn  from  the  Epistles  directed  to  these  Evangelists, 
that  divisions  and  difficulties  existed  in  both  the  Churches  to  which 
they  were   sent.     Among  the  Christians  at  Ephesus  there  had 
crept  in  ravenous  wolves,  who  annoyed  and  wasted  the  flock  ;  and 
also  some  who  had  turned  aside  unto  vain  jangling,  desiring  to 
be  teachers  of  the  law,  without  understanding  what  they  said,  or 
whereof  they  affirmed.     And,  in  the  church  of  Crete,  it  appears, 
that  there  were  many  unruly  and  vain  talkers,  and  deceivers, 
especially  they  of  the  circumcision  ;  who  gave  heed  to  Jewish 
fables,  and  commandments  of  men  that  turned  from  the  truth. 
Under  these  circumstances,  the  pious  and  benevolent  Paul,  who 
had  laboured  so  much  in  those  churches,  would  naturally  feel  him- 
self called  upon  to  do  something  for  their  relief.     But  what  was  to 
be  done?  He  was  not  able,  or  he  did  riot  think  proper,  to  go  him- 
self to  direct  their  affairs.     He  could  not  send  them  copies  of  that 
sacred  charter,  with  which  the  churches  are  now  furnished,  viz.  the 
New  Testament,  a  considerable  portion  of  which  was  not  then  in 
existence.    The  ministers  residing  there  were  probably  themselves 
involved  in  the  disputes  and  animosities  which  prevailed ;  and,  there- 
fore, could  not  be  considered  as  suitable  persons  to  compose  tumults, 
and  to  settle  differences  in  which  they  had  taken  a  part.     There 
was  no  alternative,  but  to  send  special  missionaries,  immediately 
empowered  by  a  person  of  acknowledged  authority,  to  act  in  the 
various  exigencies   which  might  arise;  to  curb   the  unruly;  to 
reclaim  the   wandering  ;  to  repress  the  ambition  of  those   who 
wished  to  become  teachers,  or  to  thrust  themselves  into  the  minis- 
try, without  being  duly  qualified;  to  select  and  ordain  others,  of 
more  worthy  character  ;  and,  in  general,  to  set  in  order  the  affairs 
of  those  churches.     Now,  as  both  Timothy  and  Titus  had  been 
recently  with  the  Apostle,  when  they  set  out  on  their  respective 
missions,  it  is  not  to  be  supposed  that  the  epistles  which  we  find 
directed  to  them,  were  written  solely,  or  even  principally,  for  their 
instruction.     It  is  probable   that   they  were  rather  intended  as 
credentials,  to  be  shown  to  the  churches  of  Ephesus  and  Crete  ; 
as  means  of  commanding  their  respect  and  obedience  to  these 


68  LETTER  HI. 

missionaries  ;  and,  after  answering  this  occasional  purpose,  to  be 
placed  on  record  in  the  sacred  canon,  to  serve  as  a  guide  to  the 
church  in  every  age.  Considering  the  subject  in  this  light,  the 
mere  fact  of  these  missionaries  being  sent  to  Ephesus  and  Crete 
does  not  afford  even  the  shadow  of  ground  for  ascribing  to  them 
the  high  episcopal  powers,  of  which  so  much  is  said.  No  reason 
that  deserves  to  be  called  even  plausible  can  be  urged,  for  suppos- 
ing they  had  any  higher  character  than  that  of  presbyters. 

AJifth  remark,  which  invalidates  the  argument  under  considera- 
tion is  this.  We  know  not  that  either  Timothy  or  Titus,  alone, 
ordained  a  single  presbyter,  at  Ephesus  or  Crete.  The  epistles 
giving  directions  with  respect  to  those  churches  are,  indeed,  address- 
ed to  the  individual  ministers  whose  names  they  bear.  But  this 
might  have  been  done  merely  because  they  were  the  most  con- 
spicuous and  able  of  the  ministers  called  to  act  in  those  departments 
of  the  church.  It  is  ev  ident  that  some  parts  of  these  epistles  were 
intended  to  guide  the  churches,  as  well  as  the  ministers  to  whom 
they  were  sent.  Besides,  in  all  the  particular  instances  of  ordina- 
tion which  are  recorded  in  the  New  Testament,  we  find  a  plurality 
of  orclainers  present  and  officiating.  And  though  we  are  not 
formally  told,  that  any  other  ordainers  accompanied  Timothy  and 
Titvs,  in  visiting  the  churches  to  which  they  were  respectively  sent; 
we  cannot  undertake  to  affirm  that  there  were  none  such.  Yet  the 
whole  force  of  the  episcopal  argument  depends  upon  taking  for 
granted  that  each  of  those  missionaries  was  alone  vested  with  the 
whole  ordaining  and  governing  power,  in  the  diocese  supposed  to 
be  assigned  him. 

In  the  sixth  place — With  respect  to  Timothy,  there  is  a  fact 
which  militates  strongly  against  the  argument  in  question.  It  is 
is  this.  If  he  were  ever  Bishop  of  Ephesus,  it  must  have  been 
when  Paul's  first  epistle  to  him  was  written  :  for  it  is  in  this  epistle 
alone  that  the  supposed  evidence  of  his  episcopal  powers  is  found. 
But  this  epistle,  as  the  most  learned  and  judicious  commentators 
agree,  was  written  from  Macedonia,  about  the  year  of  Christ  58  ; 
a  short  time  before  the  celebrated  interview  of  Paul  with  the 
efciers  of  Ephesus,  at  Miletus.  This  is  the  date  assigned  to  it  by 
Athanasius  and  Theodoret,  among  the  ancients;  and  by  Dr. 
Hammond,  the  learned  Grolius,  Dr.  Lightfoot,  Dr.  Benson,  Dr. 
Doddridge,  Professor  Michcelis,  and  other  modern  critics  of  equal 


TESTIMONY  OF  SCRIPTURE.  69 

reputation.     Now  if  Timothy  were  constituted  Bishop  of  Ephesus 
at  this  period,  how  came  the  apostle  PGM?,  a  short  time  afterwards, 
in  his  conference  with  the  elders  whom  he  met  at  Miletus,  to  style 
them  the  Bishops  of  that  Church,  and  to  commit  to  them  its 
government,  as  we  have  seen  in  a  former  letter  ? — Was  Timothy, 
after  holding  this  office  a  few  months,  so  soon  displaced  ?  Or,  if  he 
still  bore  the  office,  is  it  credible  that  the  apostle  should  have 
totally  forgotten  tne  circumstance ;  that  he  should  declare  the  pres- 
byters of  that  Cnurch  to  be  its  Bishops,  and  charge  them  to  exe- 
cute  episcopal  duties ;  and  that,  when  predicting  divisions  and 
heresies  which  were  about  to  arise  among  them,  he  should  say  no- 
thing of  any  superior  officer  as  their  spiritual  guide,  and  bond  of 
union  ?    It  is  not  credible.     No  impartial  reader  can  believe  that 
Timothy,  at  this  time,  bore  any  such  fixed  relation  to  thetChurch 
of  Ephesus  as  that  for  which  the  friends  of  prelacy  contend. 

A  seventh  remark  on  this  argument,  also,  deserves  attention. 
Timothy  and  Titus  are  considered  by  Episcopalians  as  diocesan 
Bishops ;  the  former  of  Ephesus,  the  latter  of  Crete.  But  it  is  evi- 
dent from  the  New  Testament  history  that  neither  of  these  minis- 
ters was  long  stationary  in  any  one  place.  They  appear  to  have 
been  almost  constantly  itinerating  to  preach  the  Gospel  and  orga- 
nize Churches.  With  respect  to  Timothy,  we  find  him  at  one 
period  with  Paul  at  Philippi  and  Thessalonica :  a  little  afterwards 
at  Athens :  then  at  Thessalonica  again.  Some  years  after  this,  we 
find  him  successively  at  Ephesus,  Macedonia,  and  Corinth :  then 
returning  to  Ephesus  :  soon  afterwards  re-visiting  Corinth  and 
Macedonia  :  then  going  to  Jerusalem  :  and  last  of  all,  travelling  to 
Rome,  where  the  sacred  history  leaves  him.  In  like  manner,  we 
may  trace  Titus,  in  his  successive  journeys,  from  Syria  to  Jerusa- 
lem :  thence  to  Corinth :  from  Corinth  to  Macedonia :  back  again 
to  Corinth :  thence  to  th€  Island  of  Crete:  afterwards  to  Dalmatia, 
and,  as  some  suppose,  back  again  to  Crete.  Does  this  look  like  a 
fixed  episcopal  charge  ?  Nothing  more  unlike  it. 

Finally — If  Timothy  and  Titus  were  diocesan  Bishops,  then  the 
apostles  sustained  a  still  higher  office.  It  is  evident  from  the  whole 
tenor  of  Scripture,  that  the  apostolic  character  was  superior  to  that 
of  the  Evangelists :  and  Paul,  especially,  always  addresses  Timo- 
thy and  Titus  in  a  style  of  authority.  But  if  this  be  so,  then  we 
have,  by  divine  right,  Archbishops  as  well  as  Bishops ;  that  is, 


70  LETTER  III. 

four  orders  of  clergy,  instead  of  three.  I  know  that  the  advocates 
of  episcopacy  disclaim  this  consequence.  They  tell  us  that  there 
is  no  divine  warrant  for  more  than  three  orders;  and  that  Arch- 
bishops and  Metropolitans  are  only  different  grades  of  the  same 
order,  resting,  not  on  Divine  appointment,  but  human  expediency. 
But  are  they  consistent  with  themselves  in  saying  this  ?  They  are 
not.  On  the  one  hand,  they  contend,  that  the  Apostles  held  a 
station  of  superiority  and  government  over  all  other  ministers;  and 
this,  not  on  the  ground  of  their  extraordinary  gifts  and  circum- 
stances; but  in  virtue  of  a  power  which  was  ordinary  and  per- 
petual, and  in  which  they  had  successors.  On  the  other  hand, 
the  same  persons  contend,  that  Timothy  and  Titus,  though  subject 
themselves  to  the  apostles,  possessed,  in  their  turn,  an  episcopal 
superiority  and  government  over  the  presbyters  of  Ephesus  and 
Crete :  and  this,  not  founded  on  any  peculiar  occasion  or  exigency, 
but  on  essential  and  permanent  principles,  and  transmitted  to 
Bishops  in  all  succeeding  ages.  Here,  then,  are  two  grades  of 
Episcopal  power ;  both  equally  founded  on  divine  right ;  both 
superior  to  Presbyters,  yet  unequal  to  each  other;  running  parallel 
with  each  other  for  a  number  of  years  before  the  decease  of  the 
Apostles;  both  resting  on  principles  ordinary  and  perpetual;  both 
transmitted  to  successors  ;  both  essential  to  the  well-being  of  the 
Church.  On  this  principle  Episcopalians  are  driven  to  the  neces- 
sity of  contending  for  two  orders  of  Bishops,  as  indispensable  in 
the  organization  of  every  Church.*  If,  to  avoid  this  difficulty, 
they  grant,  either  that  the  authority  of  the  apostles  over  Timothy 
and  Titus  was  extraordinary  ;  or  that  the  authority  of  Timothy 
and  Titus  over  other  ministers  was  so,  they  instantly  surrender 
one  of  their  boasted  arguments  for  a  settled  prelacy.  But  a  prin- 
ciple which  either  proves  too  much,  or  leads  to  absurdity,  is  false, 
and  of  course  inadmissible. 

In  short;  when  the  advocates  for  diocesan  episcopacy  prove, 
that  Timothy  and  Titus  were  sent  to  Ephesus  and  Crete  to  remain 
longer,  and  on  a  more  important  errand  than  to  several  other 


*  We  avoid  the  whole  of  this  difficulty  by  our  doctrine.  We  hold  that 
all  the  authority  over  other  ministers,  with  which  the  apostles  and  evan- 
gelists were  vested,  was  extraordinary  and  necessarily  arose  from  the 
sacred  canon  not  being  yet  completed,  and  the  Church  not  yet  settled. 


TESTIMONY  OF  SCRIPTURE.  71 

churches  which  they  visited  :  when  they  prove  that  these  ministers 
went  to  those  churches  in  a  higher  character  than  that  of  itinerant 
presbyters,  or  evangelists,  the  very  title,  and  the  only  title,  which 
the  inspired  apostle  gives  to  one  of  them  :  when  they  prove  that 
each  of  them  ordained,  and  exercised  other  episcopal  powers 
alone,  that  is,  without  the  presence  or  aid  of  colleagues :  when 
they  prove  that  there  were  presbyters  regularly  ordained,  residing 
at  Ephesus  and  Crete,  before  these  missionaries  went  thither,  who 
might  have  performed  the  rite  of  ordination,  supposing  presbyters 
to  possess  this  power  :  when  they  prove  that  Timothy  and  Titus 
ordained,  not  as  presbyters,  but  in  virtue  of  some  superior  inherent 
character  ;  and  that,  for  the  purpose  of  clothing  them  with  this 
character,  they  received  a  new  and  appropriate  ordination  :  when 
they  prove  these  things,  the  argument  under  consideration  will  be 
of  some  value.  Even  then,  several  essential  Jinks  in  the  chain  of 
proof  for  establishing  an  indispensable  and  unalterable  divine  right, 
will  be  wanting.  But,  until  these  leading  facts  are  established,  the 
argument  Is  absolutely  worth  nothing ;  and,  after  all  the  changes 
that  may  be  rung  upon  it,  and  all  the  decorations  with  which  it  may 
be  exhibited,  it  amounts  only  to  a  gratuitous  assumption  of  the 
whole  point  in  dispute. 

V.  Another  argument  frequently  adduced  in  favour  of  diocesan 
episcopacy,  is  founded  on  the  addresses  in  Rev.  ii.  and  iii.  to  the 
Angels  of  the  Asiastic  Churches.  "  These  Angels,"  say  the 
advocates  of  prelacy,  "  were  individuals,  who  presided  over  the 
"seven  Churches,  which  are  addressed  in  those  chapters;  and 
"  who,  of  course,  could  be  no  other  than  Bishops." 

On  this  argument,  also,  much  stress  is  laid.  But,  really,  its  sole 
merit,  as  in  several  preceding  cases,  consists  in  confident  assertion, 
and  in  begging  the  whole  question. 

Is  it  certain,  that  by  these  Angels  were  meant  individual  minis- 
ters ?  Some,  and,  among  the  rest,  very  respectable  episcopal  com- 
mentators, have  thought  that  by  this  word  collective  bodies  of  pastors 
were  intended.  Again  ;  supposing  individuals  to  be  meant,  what 
is  there  in  the  word  Angel  which  ascertains  its  meaning  to  be  a 
diocesan  bishop?  Angel  signifies  a  messenger ;  and,  accordingly, 
some  able  episcopal  writers  have  conjectured  (and  no  mortal  can  do 
more  than  conjecture)  that  the  Angels  referred  to  in  this  passage  of 


72  LETTER  III. 

Scripture  were  a  kind  of  itinerant  legates  or  special  missionaries  to 
several  the  Churches^mentioned  in  connexion  with  them.  But,  admit- 
ting that  they  were  resident  ministers  j  perhaps  they  were  pastors 
of  single  congregations ;  or  perhaps  they  were  the  Moderators*  or 
Chairmen  of  the  respective  presbyteries  of  Ephesus,  Smyrna,  &c. 
Or,  perhaps,  in  each  of  those  cities,  the  eldest  and  most  conspicuous 
pastor  was  selected  as  the  medium  for  addressing  the  church  of  the 
city  in  which  he  lived.  I  say  perhaps,  for  each  of  these  opinions 
has  had  its  advocates,  among  Episcopalians,  as  well  as  others ;  and 
it  is  impossible  to  be  certain  which  of  them  approaches  nearest  to 
the  truth  ;  or,  whether'  they  are  not  all  erroneous.  Amidst  this 
total  uncertainty,  then,  is  it  not  abusing  the  credulity  of  men,  to 
the  last  degree,  to  take  the  whole  question  in  controversy  for 
granted ;  to  pronounce  with  confidence  that  no  other  than  diocesan 
bishops  could  have  been  intended ;  and  to  represent  as  blinded 
with  prejudice  all  who  do  not  see  and  acknowledge  this  to  be  the 
case? 

Let  it  be  remembered,  however,  that,  so  far  as  the  insulated 
word  Angel  carries  with  it  a  meaning  to  us,  that  meaning  is  much 
more  favourable  to  presbytery  than  episcopacy.  It  was  shown  in 
a  former  letter  that,  in  every  Synagogue  among  the  Jews, 
there  was  an  officer,  who,  among  other  names,  was  called  the 
Angel  of  the  church.  It  was  also  shown  that  the  Synagogue 
model,  particularly  with  respect  to  the  names  and  duties  of 
ministers,  was  adopted  in  the  Christian  Church.  Now  if  this 
reasoning  be  admitted,  we  must  consider  these  angels  as  ordinary 
pastors,  addressed  either  in  their  individual  or  collective  capacity, 
probably  the  latter  ;t  and  the  whole  strain  of  the  addresses  to  them 

*  Thus,  in  our  church,  when  a  letter  is  written  to  one  of  our  presbyte- 
ries, to  that  of  New  York,  for  instance,  it  is  always  addressed,  "  To  the 
Moderator  of  the  Presbytery  of  New-York." 

•f  I  am  sensible  that  there  is  considerable  diversity  of  opinion  among 
Presbyterians,  as  well  as  Episcopalians,  with  respect  to  the  character  of 
the  Apocalyptic  Angels.  But  as  the  sacred  writer  gives  us  no  information 
relative  to  their  character,  excepting  what  may  be  gathered  from  the 
name .-  and  as  there  are  at  least  half  a  dozen  different  opinions  on  the 
subject,  all  equally  reconcilable  with  the  scriptural  representation,  it  ik 
no  wonder  that  this  diversity  of  opinion  should  exist.  In  truth,  when 
thoroughly  sifted,  the  whole  argument  will  be  found  perfectly  nugatory. 


TESTIMONY  OF  SCRIPTURE.  73 

serves  rather  to  confirm  than  to  invalidate  this  conclusion. — 
But  we  are  gravely  told,  that  some  of  the  early  fathers  declare, 
that  these  Angels  were  single  persons,  and  bishops.  Though  this 
is  not  that  Scriptural  testimony,  which  we  are  now  demanding, 
yet  we  will  admit  the  fact.  Some  of  the  fathers  do  say  so.  And 
some  of  the  fathers  go  further,  and  tell  us  that  they  were  Arch- 
bishops ;  nay,  some  of  them  even  go  so  far  as  to  mention  the  names 
of  these  Archbishops  ;  though,  unfortunately,  they  disagree  among 
themselves  in  making  out  a  list  of  the  names,  and,  therefore,  excite 
a  suspicion  that  all  their  testimony  on  the  subject  is  unworthy  of 
credit.  But,  further,  it  is  certain  that  some  other  fathers,  equally 
entitled  to  respect,  represent  these  angels,  not  as  individual  bishops, 
but  as  collective  bodies.  Now  which  of  these  early  writers  shall 
we  believe  ?  No  wise  man  can  be  at  a  loss  to  answer.  Their 
mutual  contradictions  to  teach  us  to  put  no  confidence  in  this  kind 
of  testimony. 

I  will  only  add,  that  the  learned  advocate  for  prelacy,  Mr.  Dod- 
well,  expressly  gives  up  this  whole  argument.  In  his  book,  entitled, 
one  Priesthood  and  one  Altar,  published  in  1683,  he  expresses 
the  opinion  commonly  held  by  episcopal  writers,  that  the  Angels 
of  the  seven  Asiastic  Churches  were  diocesan  bishops  ;  but  in  his 
Parcenesis,  published  about  twenty  years  afterwards,  he  explicitly 
renounces  this  opinion  ;  and,  while  he  expresses  much  uncertainty 
with  respect  to  the  character  of  these  angels,  and  concedes  the 
impossibility  of  deciding  who  they  were,  he  rather  intimates  his 
belief  that  they  were  itinerary  legates,  sent  from  Jerusalem, 
answering  to  the  seven  spirits,  mentioned  Zech.  iv.  10,  that  arc 
the  eyes  of  the  Lord,  which  run  to  and  fro  through  the  whole 
earlh. 

VI.  The  last  argument  deduced  by  the  friends  of  episcopacy 
from  Scripture,  which  appears  worthy  of  notice,  is  that  which  is 
founded  on  two  parallel  passages,  one  in  1  Cor.  xii.  the  other  in 
E plies,  iv.  The  former  is  in  these  words — And  God  hath  set 
some  in  the  church  ;  Jirst,  Apostles  ;  secondarily,  Prophets  ;  third- 
ly,  Teachers  ;  after  that  miracles  ;  then  gifts  of  healing,  helps, 
governments,  diversities  of  tongues.  The  latter,  as  follows— 

and  to  afford  no  solid    evidence  in  favour   of   cither    episcopacy   or 
presbytery 

K 


74  LETTER  III. 

And  he  gave  some,  Apostles  ;  and  some,  Prophets ;  and  some 
Evangelists  ;  and  some,  Pasforsand  Teachers,  for  the  perfecting 
of  the  saints,  for  the  work  of  the  ministry t  for  the  edifying  of 
the  body  of  Christ,  &c.  In  these  passages,  the  friends  of 
episcopacy  assure  us,  there  are  various  orders  of  Christian  Ministers, 
and  only  enumerated,  but  also  expressly  said  to  be  set  or  fixed  in 
the  church  by  its  great  Head.  There  must,  then,  say  they,  be 
various  orders  of  clergy,  by  divine  appointment,  to  the  end  of  the 
world. 

But  if  these  passages  of  Scripture  are  considered  as  representing 
the  ordinary  ministry  of  the  church,  in  all  ages,  they  prove  by  far 
too  much.  They  prove  that  every  regular  church  must  have  more 
than  three  orders  of  clergy  :  They  prove  that,  among  these,  there 
must  be  Apostles  and  Prophets,  as  well  as  Evangelists,  Pastors, 
and  Teachers:  They  prove  that  no  true  church  is  without  miracles, 
gifts  of  healing,  and  diversities  of  tongues:  And,  if  the  order 
of  arrangement  is  that  of  dignity,  they  prove  that  governing  the 
church  is  among  the  lowest  grades  of  ecclesiastical  duty.  The 
friends  of  episcopacy  will,  perhaps,  say,  that  some  of  the  offices 
and  gifts  here»enumerated,  were  extraordinary,  and  confined  to 
the  apostolic  age.  This  is  readily  granted.  It  is  too  obvious  to 
be  denied.  But  the  moment  our  episcopal  brethren  take  this 
ground,  they  surrender  the  whole  argument  founded  on  these 
passages.  For  if  «// the  offices  enumerated  in  these  passages  were 
notj?.m2  in  the  church,  and  if  the  whole  enumeration  were  not 
intended  as  a  model  for  us,  the  principle  of  the  argument  is 
abandoned. 

But,  admitting,  for  the  sake  of  argument,  that  the  various  classes 
of  Gospel  ministers  here  enumerated  were  all  intended  to  be 
perpetual  in  the  church  :  admitting  all  the  difficulties  with  respect 
to  Prophecy  and  Miracles,  which  no  church  now  claims,  to  be 
surmounted  :  and  admitting  also,  that  the  number  of  orders 
enumerated,  can,  by  some  process  of  ecclesiastical  arithmetic 
hitherto  unknown,  be  reduced  from  four  or  Jive  to  three,  the  num- 
ber of  which  Episcopalians  are  so  fond ;  there  is  still  an  unfortunate 
circumstance,  which  effectually  deprives  them  of  all  benefit  from  the 
argument ;  or,  rather,  which  turns  it  against  them.  It  is  this  :  All 
the  classes  or  denomination  of  ministers  here  enumerated  are 
represented  in  the  New  Testament,  as  vested  with  power  to  ordain, 


TESTIMONY   OF  SCRIPTURE.  75 

and  as  actually  exercising  this  power.  The  ordaining  power  of 
apostles  is  disputed  by  none.  Prophets  and  teachers,  we  have 
seen,  performed  an  ordination  at  Antioch ;  Timothy  and  'litus, 
who  were  evangelist 's,  exercised  the  ordaining  power  at  Ephesus 
and  Crete  ;  and  presbyters  ordained  Timothy  to  the  work  of  the 
ministry.  Now  if  these  different  denominations  correspond  with  the 
three  orders  of  bishops,  presbyters,  and  deacons,  in  modern  times  ; 
then  it  follows,  that  the  power  of  ordination,  instead  of  belonging 
exclusively  to  th^Jirsl  of  these  three  orders,  belongs  equally  to  them 
all.  A  consequence  which,  though  perfectly  reconcilable  with 
our  doctrine,  is  absolutely  destructive  to  the  episcopal  scheme. 

I  have  now  given  you,  my  brethren,  a  sketch  of  the  strongest 
arguments  deduced  from  Scripture  in  favour  of  episcopacy,  with 
which  I  am  acquainted.  It  is  for  you  to  judge  whether  these 
arguments  do  really  establish  the  claim  which  they  are  intended  to 
support.  It  is  for  you  to  judge  whether  they  give  even  probability 
to  this  claim.  Above  all,  it  is  for  you  to  decide,  whether  they 
show  that  it  is  a  claim  of  unalterable  divine  right,  and  its  admission 
essentially  necessary  to  the  regular  organization  of  the  church,  and 
the  valid  ministration  of  the  sacraments.  For  myself,  I  must 
conscientiously  declare,  that  the  arguments  attempted  to  be 
drawn  from  Scripture,  in  favour  of  prelacy,  do  not  appear  to  me  to 
possess  the  smallest  degree  of  real  force  ;  and  that  even  to  concede 
to  them  the  merit  of  plausibility,  is  more  than  an  impartial  judge 
would  allow.  I  can  truly  say,  that  when  I  first  approached  the 
investigation  of  this  subject,  I  expected  to  find  much  more  in  the 
sacred  volume  appearing  to  favour  the  episcopal  cause,  than  I  have 
since  been  able  to  discover.  It  did  not  occur  to  me  as  possible, 
that  such  confident  appeals  to  Scripture  could  be  continually  made 
on  grounds  so  entirely  unsolid.  I  might  have  recollected,  indeed, 
the  decisive  tone  with  which  many  ingenious  and  learned  men 
have  resorted  to  the  sacred  oracles  to  establish  the  supremacy  of 
the  Pope,  and  the  damning  sin  of  separation  from  the  church  of 
Home.  Nor  ought  we  to  be  surprised  that  pious  and  learned  men, 
of  other  denominations,  should  fall  into  similar  mistakes,  and 
express  equal  confidence  of  finding  support  where  none  is  in  reality 
to  be  found.  The  late  Mr.  Burke  has  somewhere  said,  "  Let  us 
"  only  suffer  any  person  to  tell  us  his  story  morning  and  evening 


76  LETTER  III. 

«  bul  for  one  twelve-month,  and  he  will  become  our  master." 
Many  zealous  advocates  of  episcopacy  have  been  so  long  in  the 
habit  of  saying,  and  of  hearing  it  said,  that  the  Scriptures  "  clearly," 
"  strongly,"  and  "  unquestionably"  declare  in  favour  of  their 
system ;  and  some  of  them  so  little  in  the  habit  of  reading  the 
refutations  of  this  error,  that  they  unfeignedly  believe  it,  and 
scruple  not  to  stigmatize  all  who  do  not  see  it,  as  given  up  to 
blindness  and  prejudice.  But,  happily,  we  have  the  sacred  volume 
in  our  hands  as  well  as  they ;  and  after  the  most  dispassionate 
examination,  are  compelled  to  pronounce  their  arguments  from 
Scripture,  nugatory;  their  confidence  totally  unwarranted;  and 
the  whole  system  which  they  profess  to  found  on  the  word  of  God, 
a  fabric  resting  alone  on  human  contrivance. 

After  this  statement,  you  will  not  be  surprised  to  learn,  that  the 
whole  testimony  drawn  from  scripture,  in  favour  of  diocesan  epis- 
copacy, has  been  pronounced  altogether  inconclusive,  by  some  of 
the  warmest  and  ablest  friends  of  that  system.  The  learned  Dad- 
well,  one  of  the  great  oracles  of  high-churchmen,  frankly  confesses, 
that  Bishops,  as  a  superior  order  to  Presbyters,  are  not  to  be 
found  in  the  New  Testament ;  that  such  an  order  had  no  existence 
until  the  beginning  of  the  second  century  ;  that  presbyters  were 
the  highest  ecclesiastical  officers  left  in  commission  by  the  Apos- 
tles ;  and  that  the  first  diocesan  Bishops  were  ordained  by  Pres- 
byters, the  last  apostle  having  been  dead  a  number  of  years  before 
this  new  order  was  instituted  in  the  church.  And  even  those  who 
attempt  with  confidence  to  found  diocesan  episcopacy  on  the  Scrip- 
tures, exhibit  such  contradiction  and  confusion  among  themselves 
as  entirely  to  invalidate  the  whole  testimony  which  they  would 
derive  from  this  source.  Scarcely  any  two  of  their  great  standard 
writers  can  agree  upon  any  one  principle  of  scriptural  evidence. 
And  accordingly,  you  have  seen,  that  all  the  leading  arguments 
drawn  from  scripture  in  support  of  prelacy,  have  been  pronounced 
wholly  untenable,  and  each  in  its  turn  surrendered,  by  a  number 
of  the  most  pious  and  learned  divines  of  the  church  of  England. 
Can  Episcopalians,  then,  complain  that  we  are  not  convinced  by 
arguments,  which  some  of  the  most  competent  judges  among  them- 
selves have  declared  to  be  inconclusive  and  even  frivolous  ? 

But  this  is  not  all :  the  great  body  of  episcopal  writers,  even 
those  who  contend  most  earnestly  for  the  scriptural  evidence  in 


TESTIMONY  OF  SCRIPTURE.  77 

their  favour,  acknowledge,  if  I  mistake  not,  that  their  system  is 
not  directly  laid  down  in  the  word  of  God.  In  other  words,  they 
confess,  that  the  Scriptures,  taken  absolutely  alone,  will  not  bear 
them  out  in  their  claims.  But  they  suppose,  and  insist,  that  the 
facts  which  are  mentioned  in  the  sacred  history,  taken  in  con- 
nexion with  the  writings  of  the  early  Fathers,  decidedly  support 
this  claim.  That  is,  the  New  Testament,  in  its  own  divine  sim- 
plicity, is  insufficient  for  their  purpose  ;  but,  explained,  and  aided, 
by  the  writings  of  fallible  men,  it  declares  positively  in  their  favour 

Is  it  so,  then,  that  a  doctrine,  held  not  merely  as  important,  but 
fundamental ;  not  merely  as  fundamental,  but  essential  to  the  very 
existence  of  the  church  ;  without  which  her  officers  are  unautho- 
rized, her  ministrations  invalid,  and  her  sacraments  a  nullity,  cannot 
be  maintained  from  the  Bible  alone  ?  Is  it  so,  that  the  Great  Head 
of  the  church  has  given  us  his  word  to  be  a  light  to  our  feel  and  a 
lamp  to  our  path  ;  that  he  has  denounced  the  most  awful  threat- 
enings  against  those  who  add  to,  or  take  from  the  words  of  this 
book  ;  and  yet  that  an  article  which  lies  at  the  foundation  of  all  the 
interests  and  hopes  of  the  Christian  church  cannot  be  directly 
proved  out  of  that  book  ?  what  is  this  but  saying,  that  the  Bible  is, 
not  a  rule  either  perfect,  or  sufficient  for  the  church  ?  what  is  this 
but  embracing  a  principle  which  makes  human  testimony  co-ordi- 
nate with  that  of  God ;  and  which  must  involve  us  in  all  the  mazes 
and  uncertainty  of  tradition  ?  but  the  admission  of  the  principle 
in  question,  is  not  merely  taking  uncertain  and  dangerous  ground  ; 
it  is  liable  to  a  more  serious  objection.  To  say  that  an  article  of 
faith  or  practice  is  essential  to  the  well  being  of  the  church,  which 
is  the  body  of  Christ,  and,  at  the  same  time,  that  it  cannot  be 
distinctly  and  satisfactorily  proved  from  Scripture ;  is,  in  effect, 
bringing  a  charge  against  the  great  Head  of  the  church,  which  1 
know  the  advocates  of  this  position  would  abhor  equally  with  our- 
selves ;  and  which  is  too  shocking  to  be  expressed  in  language. 

But  the  advocates  of  episcopacy  tell  us,  that  our  demand  of 
express  warrant  from  Scripture,  in  this  case,  will  carry  us  too  far. 
They  contend  that  several  articles  of  Christian  belief  and  practice, 
generally  deemed  of  great  importance,  cannot  be  distinctly  proved 
from  Revelation  alone.  And,  particularly,  they  insist,  that  if  we 
discard  episcopacy  for  want  of  direct  scriptural  testimony  in  its 


78  LETTER  III. 

favour,  we  must,  on  the  same  principle,  discard  infant  baptism, 
and  the  Christian  sabbath,  neither  of  which,  say  they,  can  be  fully 
established  on  the  ground  of  Scripture,  unconnected  with  the 
writings  of  the  early  fathers. 

To  this  plea  I  answer  without  hesitation,  that  if  it  be  true  that  a 
divine  warrant  for  infant  baptism  and  the  Christian  sabbath  is  not 
to  be  found  in  the  Bible ;  if  it  be  true  that  they  cannot  be  distinct- 
ly supported  from  the  sacred  volume,  independent  of  all  other 
authorities  ;  then  we  ought  instantly  to  discard  them.  Under  such 
circumstances,  we  should  be  unworthy  of  the  name  of  protestants 
if  we  retained  them  an  hour.  Nor  is  it  any  valid  apology  for 
the  addition  of  human  devices  to  the  institutions  of  Christ,  that 
other  additions  stand  on  the  same  ground,  and  are  equally  inde. 
fensible. 

But  it  is  not  true  that  these  important  articles  of  Christian  belief 
and  practice,  cannot  be  directly  proved  from  Scripture.  And  to 
assert  that  they  stand,  in  this  respect,  on  a  footing  with  the  doctrine 
of  diocesan  episcopacy  is,  though  certainly  not  an  intended,  yet  a 
real  and  gross  imposition  on  the  credulity  of  mankind.  THE 

DIVINE  RIGHT  OF  INFANT  BAPTISM  CAN  BE  DECIDEDLY  AND  FULLY 

PROVED  FROM  scRiPTURE.ALONE.  We  can  prove  from  Scripture, 
with  absolute  certainty,  the  divine  right  of  INFANT  CHURCH  MEM- 
BERSHIP ;  and  we  can  prove,  from  the  same  source,  and  with  equal 
certainty,  the  divine  right  of  BAPTISM  TO  ALL  CHURCH  MEMBERS. 
This  is  warrant  as  express  as  could  be  desired.  On  these  two  great 
facts,  as  on  a  rock,  the  friend  of  infant  baptism  may  stand  undaunt- 
ed and  immovable  to  the  end  of  time*  :  and  he  would  be  able  to 
do  this,  if  every  volume  in  creation,  excepting  the  Bible,  were 
committed  to  the  flames.  Scarcely  less  evident  is  the  scriptural 
warrant  for  the  Christian  sabbath.  When  we  find  one  day  in 
seven  kept  by  the  people  of  God,  as  a  day  of  sacred  rest,  from  the 
creation  till  the  giving  of  the  law  by  Moses :  when  we  find  the 
great  principle,  that  a  seventh  part  of  time  must  be  solemnly 

*  These  two  facts  by  no  means  comprise  the  whole  of  the  evidence 
found  in  Scripture  in  favour  of  infant  baptism.  The  impartial  reader  of  t  e 
sacred  oracles  will  find  in  them  much  more  to  the  same  effect.  But  these 
are  sufficient ;  and  constitute,  to  all  intents  and  purposes,  a  full  and  abun- 
dant warrant. 


TESTIMONY  OF  SCRIPTURE.  79 

consecrated  to  God,  explicitly  laid  down  in  the  decalogue,  and 
declared  to  be  of  universal  and  perpetual  obligation  :*  when  we 
find  the  disciples  of  Christ,  after  the  resurrection  of  their  Lord, 
invariably  convening  on  the  first  day  of  the  week,  for  public 
worship  :  when  we  find  this  day  formally  and  emphatically  styled 
the  Lord's  day  :  when  we  find  all  this  in  Scripture,  could  any  man 
doubt  of  the  divine  right  of  l\\e  first  day  sabbath,  even  if  no  unin- 
spired author  had  ever  written  a  line  ?  It  is  certainly  gratifying  to 
find  such  abundant  evidence  as  we  do  in  favour  of  both  these 
ordinances  in  a  number  of  early  and  authentic  writers;  but  we 
do  not  stand  in  need  of  human  testimony.  We  have  a  higher  and 
better  warrant.  This  alone  \ve  quote,  before  a  Christian  tribunal, 
as  conclusive.  And  when  the  friends  of  episcopacy  produce  anv 
thing  like  a  similar  warrant  from  Scripture,  in  behalf  of  their 
doctrine,  we  will  believe  them. 

On  the  whole,  then,  brethren,  I  trust  you  will  find  little  difficulty 
in  deciding  what  conclusion  ought  to  be  formed  concerning  a  system 
which  cannot  claim  the  least  solid  scriptural  warrant  on  which  to 
rest ;  and  which  flies  to  the  writings  of  fallible  men  to  help  out  its 
scanty  evidence.  You  will  feel  no  disposition,  I  hope,  to  call  it  by 
hard  names  ;  or  to  load  its  advocates  with  reproaches.  But  you 
will  understand  your  principles,  as  Christians  and  as  protestants, 
too  well  to  receive  for  doctrines  the  commandments  of  men  ;  or  to 
take  ground  which  will  oblige  you  even. indirectly  to  concede  the 
imperfection  and  insufficiency  of  the  Word  of  God. 

*  It  seems  to  be  taken  for  granted,  by  many,  thai  the  fourth  command- 
ment, enjoins  the  perpetual  observance  of  the  seventh  day  in  order.  This 
is  ccM-tainly  a  mistake.  It  merely  consecrates  to  God  a  seventh  part  of 
time  f  leaving  the  precise  day  in  order  to  be  made  the  subject  of  after 
regulation.  That  this  regulation  was  made  we  have  satisfactory  evidence. 


LETTER  IV. 

TESTIMONY  OF  THE  PRIMITIVE  FATHERS. 

CHRISTIAN  BRETHREN, 

THE  most  respectable  and  authentic  writers  in  the  Christian 
church,  who  lived  during  the  first  four  or  five  centuries  after  Christ,  • 
are  emphatically  styled,  by  ecclesiastical  historians,  the  fathers. 
The  writings  of  these  venerable  men  have  been  much  resorted  to  in 
this  controversy.  Many,  even  of  those  who  acknowledge  the 
feebleness  and  insufficiency  of  the  episcopal  arguments  from 
Scripture,  believe  that  the  fathers  speak  decidedly  in  their  favour. 
Whatever  doubts  may  attend  the  evidence  in  support  of  their 
system,  drawn  from  other  sources,  here,  they  imagine,  there  can 
be  no  question.  For  the  sake  of  such  persons  ;  and  to  enable  you 
to  decide  how  far  many  positive  declarations  which  are  made  by 
the  friends  of  episcopacy  are  entitled  to  credit,  it  becomes  necessary 
to  inquire  what  these  early  writers  attest  on  the  subject  before  us. 

I  shall  not  now  stay  to  ascertain  what  degree  of  respect  is  due 
to  the  writings  of  the  fathers  in  general,  ft  is  my  duty,  however, 
to  state,  that  we  do  not  refer  to  them,  in  any  wise,  as  a  rule  either 
of  faith  or  of  practice.  We  acknowledge  the  Scriptures  alone  to  be 
such  a  rule.  By  this  rule,  the  fathers  themselves  are  to  be  tried  5 
and,  of  course,  they  cannot  be  considered,  properly  speaking,  as 
the  Christian's  authority  for  any  thing.  It  is  agreed,  on  all  hands, 
that  they  are  no  infallible  guides  :  and  it  is  perfectly  well 
known  to  all  who  are  acquainted  with  their  writings,  that  many  of 
them  are  inconsistent  both  with  themselves,  and  with  one  anothf  r. 
We  protest,  therefore,  utterly  against  any  appeal  to  them  as  an 
authority  on  this  subject.  Though  they,  or  an  angel  from  heaven, 
should  bring  us  any  doctrine,  as  essential  to  the  order  and  well- 
being  of  the  church,  which  is  not  to  be  found  in  the  Word  of  God, 
we  are  bound  by  the  command  of  our  Master  to  reject  them. 

But,  as  our  episcopal  brethren  have  frequently  complained,  that 
we  treat  the  fathers  with  too  little  respect ;  and  even  insinuated  that 
we  have  no  way  of  avoiding  the  force  of  their  testimony,  but  by 


TESTIMONY  OF  SCRIPTURE.          81 

endeavouring  to  destroy  their  credibility  ;  I  will  give  as  little  ground 
of  uneasiness  on  this  head  as  possible.  Waiving,  therefore,  all 
further  discussion  of  their  title  to  credit,  I  will  cheerfully  admit 
them  as  credible  witnesses  with  respect  to  matters  of  fact,  which 
might  be  supposed  to  come  within  their  knowledge.  On  this 
ground,  then,  I  will  join  issue  with  our  opponents;  and  not  only 
admit,  but  engage  to  abide  by  the  testimony  of  their  chosen 
witnesses. 

In  examining  the  writings  of  the  fathers,  I  shall  admit  only  the 

testimony  of  those  who  wrote  within  the  FIRST  TWO  CENTURIES. 

Immediately  after  this  period  so  many  corruptions  began  to  creep 

/     into  the  church;  so  many  of  the  most  respectable  Christian  writers 

/       are  known  to  have  been  heterodox  in  their  opinions  ;  so  much 

\       evidence  appears,  that  even  before  the  commencement  of  the  third 

V     century,  the  papacy  began  to  exhibit  its  pretensions ;  and  such 

^muitipUed^) roofs  of  wide  spreading  degeneracy  crowd  into  view, 

that  the  testimony  of  every  subsequent  writer  is  to  be  received 

with  suspicion.     Besides,  if  diocesan  episcopacy  existed,  and  were 

of  the  fundamental  importance  that  our  episcopal  brethren  make 

it  to  be,  we  may  surely  expect  to  find  some  reference  to  it  in  the 

records  of  two  hundred  years  ;  and  especially  when  we  consider 

that  those  were  years  of  the  greatest  simplicity  and  purity  ever 

known  to  the  church. 

Before  we  proceed  to  examine  what  the  fathers  say  on  this  sub- 
ject, let  us  be  careful  to  recollect  precisely,  what  our  episcopal 
brethren  contend  for,  and  what  they  are  bound  to  prove  by  these 
witnesses,  in  order  to  make  good  their  claims.  When  they  show 
us  passages  in  which  these  early  writers  merely  speak  of  bishops, 
they  seem  to  imagine  that  their  point  is  gained  :  but  such  passages 
are,  in  fact,  nothing  to  their  purpose.  We  do  not  deny  that  there 
were  bishops  in  the  primitive  church  :  on  the  contrary,  we  contend 
that  the  word  bishop  was  a  title  given,  in  apostolic  times  and  long 
afterwards,  to  every  pastor  of  a  particular  congregation.  Again, 
when  they  quote  passages  which  barely  enumerate  bishops,  pres- 
byters, and  deacons,  as  distinct  officers  in  the  church,  they  can 
derive  no  assistance  even  from  these ;  because  there  were,  doubt- 
less, presbyters,  at  that  time,  as  well  as  now,  who,  though  in  full 
orders,  were  not  invested  with  a  pastoral  charge  ;  and  who  must, 
therefore,  be  distinguished  from  such  as  were  literally  overseers  or 
L 


82  LETTER  JV. 

bishops  of  particular  flocks.  Besides,  we  know  that  there  were 
ruling  elders  in  the  primitive  church;  a  class  of  presbyters  con- 
fessed to  be  inferior  to  bishops  in  their  ecclesiastical  character.  In 
enumerating  church  officers,  then,  there  was  frequently  a  necessity 
for  making  the  distinction  above  stated,  without  in  the  least  favour- 
ing the  pretended  superiority  of  order  among  those  who  laboured 
in  the  word  and  doctrine.  The  advocates  for  diocesan  episcopacy, 
then,  if  they  would  derive  any  support  to  their  cause  from  the  writ- 
ings of  the  fathers,  must  do  what  they  have  never  yet  done. 
They  must  produce  from  those  venerable  remains  of  antiquity,  pas- 
sages which  prove,  either  by  direct  assertion,  or  fair  inference,  that 
the  bishops  of  the  primitive  church  were  a  distinct  order  of  clergy 
from  those  presbyters  who  were  authorized  to  preach  and  admi- 
nister sacraments,  and  superior  to  them  ;  that  tTiese  bishops,  when 
they  were  advanced  to  this  superior  office,  had  a  new  and  distinct 
ordination;  that  each  bishop  had  under  him  a  number  of  congre- 
gations, with  their  pastors,  whom  he  governed ;  that  these  bishops 
were  exclusively  invested  with  the  right  of  ordaining,  and  adminis- 
tering the  right  of  confirmation ;  and  that  this  kind  of  episcopacy 
was  considered,  by  the  whole  primitive  church,  as  an  institution 
of  Jesus  Christ.  When  any  one  of  these  facts  is  fairly  proved, 
from  early  antiquity,  the  friends  of  Presbyterian  church  govern- 
ment will  feeLas  if  they  had  something  like  solid  argument  to  con- 
tend with  ;  but  not  till  then.  Now,  after  having  given  much  close 
and  serious  attention  to  this  subject,  I  can  venture  to  assure  you, 
that  in  all  the  authentic  writings  which  have  come  down  to  us,  of 
those  fathers  who  lived  within  the  first  two  hundred  years  after 
Christ,  there  is  riot  a  single  sentence  which  can  be  considered,  by 
an  impartial  reader,  as  affording  the  least  support  to  any  one  of 
these  positions. 

When  you  find  the  friends  of  episcopacy  asserting  that  the 
fathers,  in  the  "  plainest  terms,"  "  unanimously,"  and  "  with  one 
voice,"  declare  in  their  favour,  you  would  naturally  expect  to  find 
these  early  writers  saying  much,  and  expressing  themselves  in 
decisive  and  unequivocal  language  on  this  subject.  But,  how  will 
you  be  surprised  to  learn,  that  there  is  not  a  single  authentic  writ- 
ing extant,  composed  within  the  first  three  hundred  years  after 
Christ,  that  speaks  directly  and  formally  to  the  purpose,  on  any 
one  point  in  this  controversy  !  Thejirst  writer  who  undertook  to 


TESTIMONY  OP  THE  FATHERS.  83 

discuss  the  question,  whether  bishops  and  presbyters  were  distinct 
in  the  apostle's  days}  was  Jerome,  who  lived  in  the  fourth  century: 
and  how  he  has  decided  the  question  we  shall  see  in  the  next 
letter.  In  all  the  writings  of  earlier  date,  the  character  and  poweis 
of  church  officers  are  mentioned  in  an  indistinct  and  cursory  man- 
ner ;  frequently  by  way  of  remote  allusion,  so  as  to  leave  it  doubt- 
ful whether  they  were  intended  at  all ;  generally  without  any  appa- 
rent design  to  convey  information  respecting  them  ;  and  always 
as  if  the  subject  were  considered  by  the  writers  as  of  minor  import- 
ance. It  is  from  these  hints,  allusions,  and  occasional  intimations, 
that  we  are  to  deduce  the  early  opinions  on  the  point  before  us. 

Let  us  make  the  experiment.  Let  us  bring  forward  the  testi- 
mony of  these  ancient  worthies  in  order.  And  in  doing  this,  it 
shall  be  my  aim,  not  only  to  cite  those  passages  which  appear 
favourable  to  my  own  cause  ;  but  also  faithfully  to  state  the  strong- 
est of  those  which  are  usually  quoted  by  our  episcopal  brethren  in 
support  of  their  claim. 

In  the  catalogue  of  the  fathers,  who  say  any  thing  worthy  of 
our  attention  on  this  subject,  Clemens  Romanus  holds  the  first 
place.  He  lived  towards  the  close  of  the  first  century ;  had 
doubtless  conversed  with  several  of  the  apostles  ;  and  left  behind 
him  one  Epistle,  directed  to  the  brethren  of  the  church  at  Corinth, 
the  authenticity  of  which  is  generally  admitted.  The  occasion  of 
the  epistle  was  this.  There  had  been  a  kind  of  schism  in  the 
church  of  Corinth,  in  which  the  body  of  the  brethren  had  risen  up 
against  their  pastors,  and  unjustly  deposed  them.  The  design  of 
Clemens  in  writing  was  to  call  these  brethren  to  a  sense  of  their 
duty,  and  to  induce  them  to  restore  and  obey  their  pastors.  In 
this  epistle  the  following  passages  are  found.  "  The  apostles, 
"  going  abroad,  preaching  through  countries  and  cities,  appointed 
"  the  first  fruits  of  their  ministry  to  be  bishops  and  deacons.  Nor 
"  was  this  any  thing  new  ;  seeing  that  long  before  it  was  written 
"  concerning  bishops  and  deacons.*  For  thus  saith  the  Scripture 
"  in  a  certain  place, f  I  will  appoint  their  bishops  in  righteousness 
"  and  their  deacons  in  faith.'*  Again — "  The  apostles  knew  by 

*  Clemens  here,  no  doubt,  refers  to  Isa.  Ix.  17.  which,  in  our  English 
Bibles,  is  rendered,  /  will  also  make  thy  officers  peace,  and  thine  exactors 
righteousness,-  but  which,  in  the  Septuagini,  with  which  he  was  probably 
most  conversant,  is  interpreted  thus:  f  will  appoint  thy  rulers  in  peace, 


84  LETTER  IV. 

"  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  that  contentions  would  arise  about  the 
"  name  of  episcopacy  ;  and,  therefore,  having  a  perfect  foreknow- 
"  ledge  of  this,  they  appointed  persons,  as  we  have  before  said  ; 
"  and  gave  direction  how,  when  they  should  die,  other  chosen  and 
"  approved  men  should  succeed  in  their  ministry.  Wherefore  we 
"  cannot  think  that  those  may  be  justly  thrown  out  of  their  minis- 
"  try,  who  were  either  appointed  by  them,  or  afterwards  chosen 
"  by  other  eminent  men,  with  the  consent  of  the  whole  Church. 
"  For  it  would  be  no  small  sin  in  us  should  we  cast  off  those  from 
"  their  Episcopate  (or  Bishoprick)  who  holily  and  without  blame 
"  fulfil  the  duties  of  it.  Blessed  are  those  presbyters  who,  having 
"  finished  their  course  before  these  times,  have  obtained  a  perfect 
u  and  fruitful  dissolution.  For  they  have  no  fear  lest  any  one 
"  should  turn  them  out  of  the  place  which  is  now  appointed  for 
"  them."  And  a  little  afterwards  —  "  It  is  a  shame,  my  beloved, 
u  yea,  a  very  great  shame,  and  unworthy  of  your  Christian  pro- 
"  fession,  to  hear,  that  the  most  firm  and  ancient  Church  of  the 
"  Corinthians,  should,  by  one  or  two  persons,  be  led  into  a  sedition 
"  against  its  presbyters.  Only  let  the  flock  of  Christ  be  in  peace 
"  with  the  presbyters  that  are  set  over  it.  He  that  shall  do  this, 
"  shall  get  to  himself  a  very  great  honour  In  the  Lord.  Do  ye, 
"  therefore,  who  first  laid  the  foundation  of  this  sedition,  submit 
"  yourselves  to  your  presbyters  ;  and  be  instructed  into  repentance, 
"  bending  the  knee  of  your  hearts."* 

Clemens,  in  these  passages,  evidently  represents  the  Church  at 
Corinth  as  subject  not  to  an  individual,  but  to  a  company  of  per- 
sons, whom  he  calls  presbyters,  or  elders.  He  exhorts  the  mem- 
bers of  that  Church  to  be  obedient  to  these  presbyters  ;  and 
expostulates  with  them,  because  they  had  opposed  and  ill-treated 
their  presbyters,  and  cast  them  out  of  their  bishoprick.  Thus  we 
see  that  in  the  writings  of  Clemens,  as  well  as  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment, the  titles  bishop  and  presbyter,  are  interchangeably  applied 


and  thy  bishops  (sTr/c-jtccrot/c)  in  righteousness.  If  we  interpret  Clemens 
rigidly,  he  will  stand  as  an  advocate  for  two  orders  instead  of  three.  But 
he,  doubtless,  only  meant  to  quote  this  passage  as  a  general  promise, 
that  under  the  New  Testament  dispensation  there  should  be  a  regularly 
organized  church,  and  proper  officers;  without  undertaking  to  define 
either  their  number  or  grades. 

*  Clement's  epistle  to  the  Corinthians,  sections  42,  43,  44. 


TESTIMONY   OF   THE  FATHERS.  85 

to  the  same  men.  This  venerable  father  gives  not  the  least  hint 
of  any  distinction  between  the  office  of  bishop  and  presbyter,  but 
plainly  represents  them  as  the  same  ;  nor  does  he  once  speak  of 
three  orders  in  the  Christian  ministry.  He  mentions  a  plurality  of 
bishops  in  the  same  city;  nay,  he  not  only  represents  the  great 
cities  as  being  furnished  with  bishops,  but  speaks  of  them  as  being 
also  appointed  in  the  country  villages. 

Had  there  been  an  individual  in  the  Church  at  Corinth  vested 
with  the  powers  of  a  modern  bishop,  could  Clemens,  with  any 
decency  have  avoided  mentioning  or  alluding  to  him  ?  Who  so 
proper  to  settle  differences  between  presbyters  and  their  people,  as 
the  bishop,  empowered  to  rule  both  ?  And  if  the  place  of  such  a 
bishop  were  vacant,  by  death,  or  otherwise,  was  it  not  natural  for 
Clemens  to  say  something  about  the  appointment  of  a  successor,  as 
the  most  likely  way  to  restore  order  in  the  Church  ?  The  single 
fact  of  his  total  silence  concerning  such  an  officer,  under  these 
circumstances,  is  little  short  of  conclusive  evidence,  that  the  vene- 
rable writer  knew  of  no  other  bishops  than  the  presbyters  to  whom 
he  exhorted  the  people  to  be  subject.* 

There  is  one  passage  in  this  epistle  of  Clemens  Romanus,  which 
has  been  frequently  and  confidently  quoted  by  episcopal  writers,  as 
favourable  to  their  cause.  It  is  in  these  words  ;  sect.  40,  41.  "  Seeing, 
"  then,  these  things  are  manifest  to  us,  it  will  behove  us  to  take  care 
"  that  we  do  all  things  in  order,  whatsoever  our  Lord  has  com- 
"  manded  us  to  do.  And,  particularly,  that  we  perform  our  offer- 
"  ings  and  service  to  God  at  their  appointed  seasons ;  for  these 
"  he  has  commanded  to  be  done,  not  rashly  and  disorderly,  but  at 
"  certain  times  and  hours.  And,  therefore,  he  has  ordained,  by 
"  his  supreme  will  and  authority,  both  where,  and  by  what  per- 
"  sons,  they  are  to  be  performed.  They,  therefore,  who  make 
"  their  offerings  at  the  appointed  season  are  happy  and  accepted ; 
"  because,  that,  obeying  the  commandments  of  the  Lord,  they  are 

*  The  learned  Grotius  speaks  of  it  as  a  proof  of  the  antiquity  and 
genuineness  of  Clemen's  epistle,  "  that  he  no  where  takes  notice  of  that 
'  peculiar  authority  of  bishops,  which  was  first  introduced  into*the 
'  Church  of  Alexandria,  and  from  that  example  into  other  Churches; 

*  but  evidently  shows,  that  the  Churches  were  governed  by  the  common 

*  council  of  presbyters,  who,  by  him,  and  the  apostle  Paul,  are  all  called 
f  bishops."     Epist.  ad  Bignon, 


86  LETTER   IV. 

"  free  from  sin.  For  the  High-Priest  has  his  proper  services ; 
"  and  to  the  priests  their  proper  place  is  appointed  ;  and  to  the 
"  Levitcs  appertain  their  proper  ministries;  and  the  lay-man  is 
"  is  confined  within  the  bounds  of  what  is  commanded  to  lay-men. 
"  Let  every  one  of  you,  therefore,  brethren,  bless  God  in  his  pro- 
"  per  station,  with  a  good  conscience,  and  with  all  gravity ;  not 
"  exceeding  the  rule  of  the  service  to  which  he  is  appointed. 
"  The  daily  sacrifices  are  not  offered  every  where ;  nor  the  peace- 
"  offerings  ;  nor  the  sacrifices  appointed  for  sin  and  transgression ; 
"  but  only  at  Jerusalem  ;  nor  in  any  place  there ;  hut  only  at 
"  the  altar  before  the  temple ;  that  which  is  offered  being  first 
"  diligently  examined  by  the  High-Priest,  and  the  other  ministers 
"  we  before  mentioned." 

From  this  allusion  to  the  priesthood  of  the  Jews,  the  advocates 
of  episcopacy  infer  that  Clemens  intended  to  exhibit  that  priest- 
hood as  a  pattern  for  the  Christian  ministry.  But  nothing  more  is 
necessary  to  set  aside  this  inference  than  a  little  attention  to  the 
scope  and  connexion  of  the  passage.  Clemens  is  endeavouring  to 
convince  the  members  of  the  Corinthian  Church  of  the  necessity 
of  submission  to  their  pastors,  and  of  the  great  importance  of 
ecclesiastical  order.  For  this  purpose,  in  passages  a  little  pre- 
ceding that  which  is  above  quoted,  he  alludes  to  the  regularity 
which  prevails  in  the  natural  world,  and  particularly  among  the 
various  members  of  the  human  body.  He  refers  also  to  the  sub- 
ordination which  is  found  necessary  in  military  affairs,  remark- 
ing, that  some  are  only  common  soldiers,  some  prefects,  some 
captains  of  fifties,  some  of  hundreds,  and  some  of  thousands; 
every  one  of  whom  is  .bound  to  keep  his  own  station.  And,  finally, 
in  the  passage  under  consideration,  he  calls  the  attention  of  those 
to  whom  he  wrote  to  the  strict  order  that  was  observed  in  the 
temple  service  of  the  Jews,  and  especially  with  respect  to  the 
times  and  circumstances  of  their  offering  the  commanded  sacrifices. 
Such  is  the  plain  and  unquestionable  scope  of  the  whole  passage. 
Is  there  any  thing  here  like  an  intimation  of  three  orders  in  the 
Christian  ministry?  As  well  might  it  be  contended  that  Clemens 
would  have  the  Christian  Church  organized  like  an  army  ;  and 
that  he  recommends  four  orders  of  ministers,  corresponding  with 
the  four  classes  of  military  officers,  to  which  he  alludes.  How 
wonderful  must  be  the  prejudice  that  can  make  this  use  of  an 


TESTIMONY    OF   THE  FATHERS.  87 

allusion  !  And,  above  all,  how  weak  and  desperate  must  be  that 
cause,  which  cannot  be  supported  but  by  recurring  to  such  means ! 

The  next  early  writer,  who  says  any  thing  on  this  subject,  is 
Hermas.  Concerning  the  life  and  character  of  this  father,  we 
have  no  information.  We  only  know,  that  he  left  behind  him  a 
work  entitled  Pastor,  which  has  come  down  to  our  times,  and 
the  authenticity  of  which  is  generally  admitted.  It  was  originally 
written  in  Greek;  but  we  have  now  extant  only  an  old  Latin 
version,  of  the  author  or  date  of  which  we  know  nothing.  In  this 
work  the  following  passages  relating  to  the  ministry  are  found. 

"  Thou  shalt,  therefore,  say  to  those  who  preside  over  the 
"  Church,  that  they  order  their  ways  in  righteousness,  that  they 
"  may  fully  receive  the  promise,  with  much  glory."  Again, — 
"  After  this,  I  saw  a  vision  at  home,  in  my  own  house;  and  the 
"  old  woman,  whom  I  had  seen  before,  came  to  me,  and  asked 
"  me,  whether  I  had  yet  delivered  .her  book  to  the  elders.  And  I 
"  answered  that  I  had  not  yet.  She  replied,  thou  hast  done  well; 
"  for  I  have  certain  words  more  to  tell  thee.  And  when  I  have 
"  finished  all  the  words,  they  shall  be  clearly  understood  by  the 
"  elect.  And  thou  shalt  write  two  books,  and  send  one  to  Clement, 
"  and  one  to  Grapte.  For  Clement  shall  send  it  to  the  foreign 
"  cities,  because  it  is  permitted  to  him  to  do  so.  But  Grapte 
"  shall  admonish  the  widows  and  orphans.  But  thou  shalt  read 
"  in  this  city  with  the  elders  who  preside  over  the  Church?' 
Again — "  Hear  now  concerning  the  stones  that  are  in  the  building. 
"  The  square  and  white  stones,  which  agree  exactly  in  their  joints 
tl  are  the  apostles,  and  bishops,  and  doctors,  and  ministers,  who, 
"  through  the  mercy  of  God,  have  come  in,  and  governed,  and 
"  taught,  and  ministered,  holily  and  modestly,  to  the  elect  of 
"  God."  Again — "  As  for  those  who  had  their  rods  green,  but 
"  yet  cleft ;  they  are  such  as  were  always  faithful  and  good  ;  but 
"  they  had  some  envy  and  strife  among  themselves,  concerning 
"  dignity  and  pre-eminence.  Now  all  such  are  vain  and  without 
"  understanding,  as  contend  with  one  another  about  these  things. 
"  For  the  life  of  those  who  keep  the  commandments  of  the  Lord, 
"  consists  in  doing  what  they  are  commanded  ;  not  in  principality, 
cl  or  in  any  other  dignity ."  Once  more — "  For  what  concerns 
"  the  tenth  mountain,  in  which  were  the  trees  covering  the  cattle, 


88  LETTER  IV. 

"  they  are  such  as  have  believed,  and  some  of  them  have  been 
"  bishops,  that  is,  presidents  of  the  Churches.  Then  such  as  have 
"  been  set  over  inferior  ministries,  and  have  protected  the  poor, 
"  and  the  widows,"  &c.* 

From  one  of  the  foregoing  extracts,  it  is  evident  that  Hermas 
resided  at  Rome  ;  that  he  had  a  particular  reference  to  the  Church 
in  that  city;  and  that  the  period  at  which  he  wrote  was,  when 
Clement,  before  mentioned,  was  one  of  the  bishops  or  presidents  of 
that  Church.  From  a  comparison  of  these  extracts,  it  will  also 
appear  that  Hermas  considered  bishops  and  elders  as  different 
titles  for  the  same  office.  He  speaks  of  elders  as  presiding  over 
the  Church  of  Rome  ;  he  represents  a  plurality  of  elders  as  having 
this  presidency  at  the  same  time  ;  having  used  the  word  Bishops, 
he  explains  it  as  meaning  those  who  presided  over  the  Churches; 
and  immediately  after  bishops,  (without  mentioning  presbyters,} 
he  proceeds  to  speak  of  Deacons,  that  is,  those  who  are  intrusted 
with  the  protection  of  the  poor  and  of  the  widows. 

On  one  of  the  passages  quoted  above,  some  zealous  friends  of 
episcopacy  have  laid  considerable  stress.  It  is  this.  "  The 
"square  and  white  stones,  which  agree  exactly  in  their  joints,  are 
"  the  apostles,  and  bishops,  and  doctors,  and  ministers,  who, 
"  through  the  mercy  of  God,"  &c.  On  this  passage,  Cotelerius,  a 
learned  Roman  Catholic  editor,  has  the  following  note.  "  You  have 
"  here  the  distinct  orders  of  the  hierarchy,  in  apostles,  in  bishops, 
"  exercising  episcopacy,  in  doctors,  or  presbyters,  teaching,  and  in 
"  deacons  ministering."  In  language  of  the  same  import,  some 
protestant  friends  of  prelacy  have  commented  on  the  passage.  It  is 
really  amusing  to  find  grave  and  sober  men  attempting  to  make  so 
much  of  a  passage,  in  every  respect,  so  little  to  their  purpose.  For, 
to  say  nothing  of  the  evidently  loose  and  fanciful  nature  of  the 
whole  comparison;  it  is  not  a  warrant  for  three,  but  for  four 
orders  of  clergy  ;  and,  of  course,  if  it  proves  any  thing,  will  prove 
too  much  for  the  system  of  any  protestant  Episcopalian. 

The  epistle  of  Polycarp  to  the  church  at  Philippi,  written  early 
in  the  second  century,  stands  next  on  the  roll  of  antiquity.  This 
venerable  martyr,  like  ^Clemens,  speaks  of  only  two  orders  of 

*  Vision,  II.  4.  III.  5,  6.  Similitude,  IX.  27. 


TESTIMONY   OF  THE  FATHERS.  89 

church  officers,  viz. presbyters  and  deacons*  He  exhorts  the 
Philippians  to  obey  these  officers  in  the  Lord.  "  It  behoves  you," 
says  he,  "  to  abstain  from  these  things,  being  subject  to  the 
"  presbyters  and  deacons  as  to  God  and  Christ."  And  again : 
"Let  the  presbyters  be  compassionate  and  merciful  towards  all  5 
"turning  them  from  their  errors ;  seeking  out  those  that  are  weak  ; 
"  not  forgetting  the  widows,  the  fatherless,  and  the  poor ;  abstaining 
"  from  all  wrath,  respect  of  persons,  and  unrighteous  judgment; 
"  not  easy  to  believe  any  thing  against  any ;  nor  severe  in  judg- 
"ment;  knowing  that  we  are  all  debtors  in  point  of  law."  The 
word  bishop  is  no  where  mentioned  in  his  whole  epistle ;  nor  does 
he  give  the  most  distant  hint  as  if  there  were  any  individual  or 
body  of  men  ve'sted  with  powers  superior  to  presbyters.  On  the 
contrary,  he  speaks  of  the  presbyters  as  being  intrusted  with  the 
inspection  and  rule  of  the  church  ;  for,  while,  on  the  one  hand,  he 
exhorts  the  members  of  the  church  to  submit  to  them,  he  intreats 
the  presbj'ters  themselves  to  abstain  from  unrighteous  judgment, 
and  to  have  no  respect  of  persons. 

Perhaps  it  will  be  asked,  Ts  not  Poly  carp  spoken  of,  by  several 
early  writers,  as  bishop  of  Smyrna?  And  does  not  this  fact  alone 
establish  the  principle  for  which  Episcopalians  contend  ?  I  answer, 
by  no  means.  Polycarp  is  indeed  called  by  this  name.  So  also  is 
Clement  called  bishop  of  Rome,  and  Ignatius  of  Antioch.  Nor, 
perhaps,  have  we  any  reason  to  doubt  that  they  were  so.  But  in 
what  sense  were  they  bishops  ?  We  say,  they  were  scriptural, 
primitive  bishops,  that  is,  pastors,  or  among  the  pastors.,  of 
particular  congregations.  And  in  support  of  this  assertion,  we 
produce  the  testimony  of  scripture,  and  the  uniform  language  of  the 
truly  primitive  church.  But  whatever  kind  of  bishop  Polycarp 
was,  we  shall  presently  see  that  a  contemporary  father  exhorts  him 
to  be  personally  acquainted  with  every  member  of  his  flock  5  to 
seek  out  all  by  name  ;  and  not  to  overlook  even  the  servant  men 
and  maids  of  his  charge.  Whether  the  minister  who  could  do  this, 
was  more  than  the  pastor  of  a  single  congregation,  I  leave  every 
man  of  common  sense  to  judge. 

*  It  is  worthy  of  remark,  that  the  apostle  Paul,  in  writing1  to  the  same 
church  about  50  or  60  years  before,  also  speaks  of  their  having-  only  two 
orders  of  officers,  viz.  bishops  and  deacons.  See  Philip  i.  1.  But  those 
whom  Paul  styled  bishops,  Polycarp  afterwards  calls  presbyters,  the  names 
in  the  time  of  Polycarp,  as  well  as  in  the  time  of  Paul,  being-  still  common. 
M 


90  LETTER  IV. 

The  fourth  place,  in  the  list  of  apostolical  fathers,  belongs  to 
Ignatius.  The  epistles  which  go  under  the  name  of  this  venerable 
Christian  bishop,  have  been  the  subject  of  much  controversy. 
That  some  copies  of  them  were  interpolated,  and  exceedingly 
corrupted,  in  the  dark  ages,  all  learned  men  now  agree.*  And 
that  even  the  "shorter  epistles,"  as  published  by  Usher  and 
Vossius,  are  unworthy  of  confidence,  as  the  genuine  works  of  the 
father  whose  name  they  bear,  is  the  opinion  of  many  of  the  ablest 
and  best  judges  in  the  protestant  world. 

These  epistles  were  first  published  at  Strasburg  in  the  year 

1502.     And,  although  only  seven  are  now  received  as  genuine, 

they  were  then  eleven  in  number.     In  an  edition  published  a  few 

years  afterwards  there  appeared  twelve;  and  not  long  after  that, 

Jifteen  $  together  with  an  additional  letter  from  the  Virgin  Mary 

to  Ignatius.     Nor  did  they  alter  thus  in  number  merely  ;  for  in 

some  of  those  editions,  several  of  the  epistles  were  nearly  twice  as 

large  as  in  others.  Accordingly,  archbishop  Wake,  in  the  preface 

to  his  translation  of  these  epistles,  remarks  :  "  there  have  been 

"  considerable  differences  in  the  epistles  of  this  holy  man,  no  less 

"  than  in  the  judgment  of  our  Latin  critics  concerning  them.    To 

"  pass  by  the  first  and  most  imperfect  of  them,  the  best  that  for  a 

"  long  time  was  extant,  contained  not  only  a  great  number  of 

"  epistles  falsely  ascribed  to  this  author;  but  even  those  that  were 

*'  genuine,  so  altered  and  corrupted,  that  it  was  hard  to  find  out 

"  the  true  Ignatius  in  them.     The  first  that  began  to  remedy  this 

"  confusion,  and  to  restore  this  great  writer  to  his  primitive  sim- 

"  plicity,  was  our  most  reverend  and  learned  Archbishop  Usher, 

"  in  his  edition  of  them  at  Oxford,  Anno  1644."    The  venerable 

Archbishop  of  Armagh,  found  two  copies  of  six  of  these  epistles 

in  England ;  not  in  the  original  Greek,  but  in  very  barbarous 

Latin  translations.     In  1646,  the  learned  Isaac  Vossius  found  in 

in   the  Medicean  Library,  a  copy  in  Greek,  containing  seven 

epistles,  and  published  it  soon  afterwards  in  Amsterdam.     From 

*  It  is  even  agreed  that  some  of  these  interpolations  were  made  with 
the  express  view  of  furnishing  support  to  the  ambitious  claims  of  bishops. 
Speaking  of  some  of  the  interpolations,  Dr.  Hammond,  a  zealous 
Episcopalian,  represents  them  as  "immoderate,"  " extravagant,"  and 
"senseless?"  and  concludes  that  they  are  evidently  the  work  of  some 
*'  impostor." 


TESTIMONY   OF  THE  FATHERS.  91 

these  three  copies  Archbishop  Wake  has  formed  his  English  ver- 
sion, adopting  from  each  what  he  thought  most  likely  to  be  correct. 
Usher  had  much  doubt  of  the  genuineness  of  the  seventh  epistle, 
to  Polycarp.  "  Nor,"  observes  Archbishop  Wake,  "  does  Isaac 
"  Vossius  himself  deny  but  that  there  are  some  things  in  it,  which 
"  may  seem  to  render  it  suspicious."  Yet,  on  the  whole,  he  pub- 
lished it,  and  Wake  adopted  it  as  genuine,  with  the  other  six. 
From  the  time  of  Usher  to  the  present,  there  has  been  unceasing 
controversy  concerning  the  genuineness  of  these  epistles,  The  great 
body  of  Episcopal  writers  have  felt  so  much  interest  in  their  sup- 
posed importance  as  witnesses  in  favour  of  prelacy,  that  they  have 
generally  contended  for  them  as  the  genuine  remains  of  the  pious  fa- 
ther whose  name  they  bear.  But  it  is  believed,  that  a  large  majority 
of  the  learned  of  other  Protestant  denominations,  for  nearly  two  cen- 
turies have  been  of  the  opinion  that  they  could  not  be  relied  upon, 
and  ought  never  to  be  quoted  as  the  unadulterated  work  of  Igna- 
tius :  but  that  they  bear  manifest  marks  of  having  been  interpolated 
long  after  the  martyrdom  of  their  reputed  author.  The  following 
judgment  of  a  learned  and  zealous  Episcopalian,  who  writes  in  the 
Christian  Observer,  an  English  periodical,  conducted  with  great 
ability  by  members  of  the  established  Church  is  worthy  of  notice. 
"  Could  six  of  the  seven  epistles,  usually  ascribed  to  Ignatius  be 
"  cited  with  the  same  undoubling  confidence  which  has  accompa- 
"  nied  the  foregoing  quotations,  the  controversy  concerning  the 
"  early  existence  of  Episcopacy  would  be  at  an  end.  But,  after 
"  travelling  so  long  in  comparative  obscurity,  after  being  compelled 
"  to  close  and  strongly  directed  attention, in  order  to  pick  up  three 
"  or  four  rays  of  scattered  light,  we  are  in  a  moment  oppressed  and 
"  confounded  by  the  brightness  of  the  mid-day  sun.  For  in  these 
"  epistles  we  have  the  three  orders  of  bishops,  priests,  and  dea- 
"  cons,  marshalled  with  unseasonable  exactness,  and  repeated  with 
"  importunate  anxiety.  There  appear,  moreover,  so  many  symp- 
"  toms  of  contrivance,  and  such  studied  uniformity  of  expression, 
"  that  these  compositions  will  surely  not  be  alleged  by  any  capable 
"  and  candid  advocate  for  primitive  episcopacy,  without  great 
"  hesitation  :  by  many  they  will  be  entirely  rejected.  I  do  not 
"  mean  to  insinuate  that  the  whole  of  these  six  epistles  is  a  forgery ; 
"  on  the  contrary  many  parts  of  them  afford  strong  internal  evi- 
"  dence  of  their  own  genuineness :  but  with  respect  to  the  particu- 


92  LETTER  IV. 

"  lar  passages  which  affect  the  present  (the  Episcopal)  dispute, 
"  there  is  not  a  sentence  which  I  would  venture  to  allege.  The 
"  language,  at  the  earliest,  is  that  of  the  fourth  century."*  When 
a  zealous  advocate  of  prelacy  can  write  thus,  there  is  surely 
ground  for  utter  distrust  of  these  epistles,  when  quoted  as  testimony 
on  the  subject  before  us. 

But,  instead  of  entering  into  this  controversy,  I  will  take  for 
granted  that  the  shorter  epistles  of  Ignatius,  (and  they  alone  are 
now  quoted  among  Protestants)  are  genuine,  and  worthy  of 
implicit  confidence.  On  this  supposition  let  us  examine  them. 
And  I  will  venture  to  affirm  that  instead  of  yielding  to  the  cause 
of  diocesan  episcopacy  that  efficient  support  which  is  imagined, 
they  do  not  contain  a  single  sentence  which  can  be  construed  in 
its  favour  ;  but,  on  the  contrary,  much  which  can  only  be  recon- 
ciled with  the  primitive,  parochial  episcopacy*  or  Presbyterian 
government,  so  evidently  pourtrayed  in  scripture,  and  so  particu- 
larly defined  in  my  first  letter. 

The  following  extracts  from  these  epistles  are  among  the 
strongest  quoted  by  Episcopal  writers  in  support  of  their  cause.! 

Epistle  to  the  church  of  Ephesus.  Sect.  v.  "  Let  no  man 
"  deceive  himself;  if  a  man  be  not  within  the  altar  he  is  deprived 
"  of  the  bread  of  God.  For  if  the  prayer  of  one  or  two  be  of  such 
"  force,  as  we  are  told  ;  how  much  more  powerful  shall  that  of  the 
"  bishop  and  the  whole  church  be  ?  He,  therefore,  that  does  not 
"  come  together  into  the  same  place  with  it,  is  proud,  and  has 
"  already  condemned  himself." 

Epistle  to  the  church  of  Magnesia.  Sect.  2.  "  Seeing  then, 
"  I  have  been  judged  worthy  to  see  you,  by  Damas,  your  most 
"  excellent  bishop,  and  by  your  worthy  presbyters,  Bassus  and 
"  Apottoniusy  and  by  my  fellow  servant,  Sotio,  the  deacon — I 
"  determined  to  write  unto  you."  Sect.  6.  "  I  exhort  you  that 
"  ye  study  to  do  all  things  in  divine  concord  ;  your  bishop  presid- 
"  ing  in  the  place  of  God ;  your  presbyters  in  the  place  of  the 
"  council  of  the  apostles  ;  and  your  deacons  most  dear  to  me,  being 

• 

*  Christian  Observer,  Vol.  ii.  p.  723.    • 

f  To  cut  off  all  occasion  of  doubt,  as  to  the  fairness  used  in  translating 
these  extracts,  I  think  proper  to  state,  that  I  adopt  the  translation  of 
Archbishop  Wake." 


TESTIMONY  OF  THE  FATHERS.  93 

"  intrusted  with  the  ministry  of  Jesus  Christ,  who  was  with  the 
"  Father  before  all  ages,  and  appeared  in  the  end  to  us.  Let  there 
"  be  nothing  that  may  be  able  to  make  a  division  among  you ;  but 
"  be  ye  united  to  your  bishop,  and  those  who  preside  over  you,  to 
"  be  your  pattern  and  direction  in  the  way  to  immortality."  Sect. 
"7.  As,  therefore,  the  Lord  did  nothing  without  the  Father 
"  being  united  to  him  ;  neither  by  himself,  nor  yet  by  his  apostles  ; 
"  so  neither  do  ye  any  thing  without  your  bishop  and  presbyters : 
"  Neither  endeavour  to  let  any  thing  appear  rational  to  yourselves 
"  apart ;  but  being  come  together  into  the  same  place,  have  one 
"  common  prayer,  one  supplication,  one  mind  ;  one  hope,  in 
"  charity,  and  in  joy  undefined.  There  is  one  Lord  Jesus  Christ, 
"  than  whom  nothing  is  better.  Wherefore  come  ye  all  together 
"  as  unto  one  temple  of  God ;  as  to  one  altar ;  as  to  one  Jesus 
"  Christ ;  who  proceeded  from  one  Father,  and  exists  in  one,  and 
"  is  returned  to  one." 

Epistle  to  the  Trallians.  Sect.  2.  "  Whereas  ye  are  subject 
"  to  your  bishop  as  to  Jesus  Christ,  ye  appear  to  me  to  live  not 
"after  the  manner  of  men,  but  according  to  Jesus  Christ;  who 
u  died  for  us,  that  so  believing  in  his  death,  ye  might  escape  death. 
"  It  is  therefore  necessary,  that,  as  ye  do,  so  without  your  bishop, 
"  you  should  do  nothing.  Also  be  ye  subject  to  your  presbyters,  as 
"  to  the  apostles  of  Jesus  Christ  our  hope,  in  whom  if  we  walk, 
"  we  shall  be  found  in  him.  The  deacons,  also,  as  being  the 
"  ministers  of  the  mysteries  of  Jesus  Christ,  must  by  all  means 
"  please  all."  Sect.  7-  "  Wherefore  guard  yourselves  against 
"  such  persons.  And  that  you  will  do,  if  you  are  not  puffed  up  ; 
u  but  continue  inseparable  from  Jesus  Christ  our  God,  and  from 
"  your  bishop,  and  from  the  command  of  the  apostles.  He  that  is 
61  within  the  altar  is  pure  ;  but  he  that  is  without,  that  is,  that  does 
"  any  thing  without  the  bishop,  and  presbyters,  and  deacons,  is  not 
"  pure  in  his  conscience." 

The  epistle  to  the  church  at  Smyrna.  Sect.  8.  "  See  that  ye 
"all  follow  your  bishop,  as  Jesus  Christ,  the  Father;  and  the 
"  presbytery  as  the  apostles  :  and  reverence  the  deacons  as  the 
"  command  of  God.  Let  no  man  do  any  thing  of  what  belongs  to 
"  the  church  separately  from  the  bishop.  Let  that  Eucharist  be 
"  looked  upon  as  well  established,  which  is  either  offered  by  the 
"  bishop,  or  by  him  to  whom  the  bishop  has  given  his  consent. 


94  LETTER  IV. 

«  Wheresoever  the  bishop  shall  appear,  there  let  the  people  also  be  : 
"  as  where  Jesus  Christ  is,  there  is  the  Catholic  church.  It  is  not 
"  lawful,  without  the  bishop,  either  to  baptize,  or  to  celebrate  the 
"  holy  communion.  But  whatsoever  he  shall  approve  of,  that  is 
"  also  pleasing  to  God ;  that  so  whatever  is  done,  may  be  sure 
"  and  well  done."  Sect.  12.  "I  salute  your  very  worthy  bishop, 
"  and  your  venerable  presbytery,  and  your  deacons,  my  fellow 
"  servants  ;  and  all  of  you  in  general,  and  every  one  in  particular, 
"  in  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ." 

Epistle  to  Polycarp.  "  Ignatius  who  is  called  Theophorus,  to 
"  Polycarp,  bishop  of  the  church  which  is  at  Smyrna ;  their 
"  overseer,  but  rather  himself  overlooked  by  God  the  Father,  and 
"  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ:  all  happiness!  Sect.  1.  "  Maintain  thy 
"  place  with  all  care,  both  of  flesh  and  spirit :  Make  it  thy  endea- 
"vour  to  preserve  unity,  than  which  nothing  is  better.  Speak  to 
"every  one  as  God  shall  enable  thee."  Sect.  4.  "Let  not  the 
"  widows  beV.eglected  :  be  thou,  after  God,  their  guardian.  Let 
"  nothing  be  done  without  thy  knowledge  and  consent :  neither  do 
"  thou  any  thing  but  according  to  the  will  of  God  ;  as  also  thou 
<s  dost  with  all  constancy.  Let  your  assemblies  be  more  full:  inquire 
"  into  all  by  name:  overlook  not  the  men  nor  maid  servants ;  neither 
"  let  them  be  puffed  up,  but  rather  let  them  be  more  subject  to  the 
"  glory  of  God,  that  they  may  obtain  from  him  a  better  liberty." 
Sect.  5.  "  Tt  becomes  all  such  as  are  married,  whether  men  or 
"  women,  to  come  together  with  the  consent  of  the  bishop  ;  that  so 
"  their  marriage  may  be  according  to  godliness,  and  not  in  lust." 
Sect.  6.  "  Hearken  unto  the  bishop,  that  God  also  may  hearken 
"  unto  you.  My  soul  be  security  for  them  that  submit  to  their 
"  bishop,  with  their  presbyters  and  deacons." 

These  are  the  passages  in  the  epistles  of  Ignatius,  which  epis- 
copal writers  have  triumphantly  quoted,  as  beyond  all  doubt 
establishing  their  claims.  Nothing  stronger  or  more  decisive  is 
pretended  to  be  found  in  these  far  famed  relics  of  antiquity.  Now 
I  ask  you,  my  brethren,  whether  there  is  in  these  extracts,  a 
sentence  that  can  serve  their  purpose  ?— Let  rne  again  remind  you, 
that  they  plead,  not  for  such  bishops  as  we  acknowledge,  that  is, 
pastors  of  single  congregations,  each  furnished  with  elders  and 
deacons,  to  assist  in  the  discharge  of  parochial  duties.  On  the 
contrary,  they  plead  for  diocesan  bishops^  as  a  distinct  and  superior 


TESTIMONY  OF  THE  FATHERS.  95 

order  of  clergy,  who  alone  are  invested  with  the  right  to  govern 
the  church,  to  ordain,  and  to  confirm.  But  is  there  a  single  hint 
in  these  extracts  which  looks  as  if  the  bishops  mentioned  in  them 
were  of  a  distinct  and  superior  order  ?  Is  there  a  single  word  said 
about  the  powers  of  ordaining  and  confirming  being  appropriated 
to  these  bishops  ?  Not  a  syllable  that  has  the  most  distant  resem- 
blance to  any  thing  of  this  kind  is  to  be  found  in  all  the  epistles 
before  us.*  On  the  contrary,  it  is  evident — 

1.  That  the  bishop  so  frequently  mentioned  by  this  venerable 
father,  is  only  a  parochial  bishop,  or  in  other  words,  the  pastor  of 
a  single  congregation.     The  church  of  which  this  bishop  has  the 
care  is  represented,  throughout  the  epistles,  as  coming  together  to 
one  place  ;  as  worshipping  in  one  assembly  ;  as  having  one  altar, 
or  communion  table  ;   as  eating  of  one  loaf  ;  having  one  prayer  j 
and,  in^short,  uniting  in  all  the  acts  of  solemn  worship.     But  all 
this  can  only  apply  to  a  single  congregation.     Again,  the  bishop 
here  spoken  of,  is  represented  as  present  with  his  flock  whenever 
they  come  together  ;  as  conducting"  their  prayers,  and  presiding 
in  all  their  public  service  ;  as  the  only  person  who  was  authorized, 
in  ordinary  cases,  to  administer  baptism  and  the  Lord's  supper  ; 
as  the  person  by  whom  all  marriages  were  celebrated  ;  and  whose 
duty  it  was  to  be  personally  acquainted  with  all  his  flock  ;  to  take 
notice,  with  his  own  eye,  of  those  who  were  absent  from  public 
worship  ;  to  attend  to  the  widows  and  the  poor  of  his  congregation; 
to  seek  out  all  by  name,  and  not  to  overlook  even  the  men  and 
maid-servants  living  in  his  parish.     I  appeal  to  your  candour,  my 
brethren,    whether   these  representations   and  directions  can  be 
reasonably  applied  to  any  other  officer  than  the  pastor  of  a  single 
church  ? 

2.  It  is  equally  evident,  that  the  presbyters  and  presbytery  so 
frequently  mentioned  in  the  foregoing  extracts,  together  with  the 
deacons,  refer  to  officers  which,  in  the  days  of  Ignatius,  belonged, 
like  the  bishop,  to  each  particular  church.     Most  of  the  epistles  of 
this  father  are  directed  to  particular  churches  ;  and  in  every  case, 

*  Accordingly  Dr.  (afterwards  Bishop)  Stilling  fleet  declares—"  Of  all 
"  the  thirty-five  testimonies  produced  out  of  Ignatius  his  epistles,  for 
"  episcopacy,  I  can  meet  with  but  one  which  is  brought  to  prove  the  least 
"semblance  of  an  institution  of  Christ  for  episcopacy  and,  if  I  be  not 
"  much  deceived,  the  sense  of  that  place  is  clearly  mistaken."  Irenicum, 


96  LETTER  IV. 

we  find  each  church  furnished  with  a  bishop,  a  presbytery,  and 
deacons.  But  what  kind  of  officers  were  these  presbyters  ?  The 
friends  of  prelacy,  without  hesitation,  answer,  they  were  the  inferior 
clergy,  who  ministered  to  the  several  congregations  belonging  to 
each  of  the  dioceses  mentioned  in  these  epistles  ;  an  order  of  clergy 
subject  to  the  bishop,  empowered  to  preach,  baptize,  and  admi- 
nister the  Lord's  Supper;  but  having  no  power  to  ordain  or  confirm. 
But  all  this  is  said  without  the  smallest  evidence.  On  the  contrary, 
the  presbyters  or  presbytery  are  represented  as  always  present, 
with  the  bishop  and  his  congregation,  when  assembled  ;  as  bearing 
a  relation  to  the  same  flock  equally  close  and  inseparable  with  its 
pastor  5  and  as  being  equally  necessary  in  order  to  a  regular  and 
valid  transaction  of  its  affairs.  In  short,  to  every  altar,  or  com- 
munion table,  there  was  one  presbytery,  as  well  as  one  bishop.  To 
suppose  then  that  these  presbyters  were  the  parish  priests,  or 
rectors  of  different  congregations,  within  the  diocese  to  which  they 
belonged,  is  to  disregard  every  part  of  the  representation  which  is 
given  respecting  them.  No  ;  the  only  rational  and  probabje  con- 
struction of  the  language  of  Ignatius  is,  that  each  of  the  particular 
churches  to  which  he  wrote,  besides  its  pastor  and  deacons,  was 
furnished  with  a  bench  of  elders  or  presbyters,  some  of  them, 
probably,  ordained  to  the  work  of  the  ministry,*  and  therefore 
empowered  to  teach  and  administer  ordinances,  as  well  as  rule ; 
and  others  empowered  to  rule  only.  The  whole  strain  of  these 
epistles,  then,  may  be  considered  as  descriptive  of  Presbyterian 
government.  They  exhibit  a  number  of  particular  churches,  each 
furnished  with  a  bishop  or  pastor,  and  also  with  elders  and  deacons, 
to  whose  respective  ministrations  every  private  member  is  exhorted, 
as  long  as  they  are  regular,  implicitly  to  submit.t 

*  I  say  some  of  these  Elders  were  probably  ordained  to  the  work  of  the 
ministry,  and  of  course,  empowered  to  preach  and  administer  ordinances: 
But  this  is  not  certain.  They  might  all  have  been  ruling  elders  for  aught 
that  appears  to  the  contrary.  For  in  all  these  epistles,  it  is  no  where 
said  that  they  either  preach'ed  or  dispensed  the  sacraments.  It  cannot  be 
shown  then,  that  Ignatius,  by  his  presbyters  and  presbytery,  or  eldership, 
means  any  thing  else  than  a  bench  of  ruling  elders  in  each  church. 

j  Every  regularly  organized  Presbyterian  church  has  a  bishop,  elders, 
and  deacons.  Of  the  bench  of  elders,  the  bishop  is  the  standing  president 
or  moderator.  Sometimes,  where  a  congregation  is  large,  it  has  two  or 


TESTIMONY  OF  THE  FATHERS.  97 

I  have  been  thus  particular  in  attending  to  the  testimony  of 
Ignatius,  because  the  advocates  of  prelacy  have  always  considered 
him  as  more  decidedly  in  their  favour  than  any  other  father,  and 
have  contended  for  the  genuineness  of  his  writings  with  as  much 
zeal  as  if  the  cause  of  episcopacy  were  involved  in  their  fate.  But 
you  will  perceive  that  these  writings,  when  impartially  examined, 
instead  of  affording  aid  to  that  cause,  furnish  decisive  testimony 
against  it. 

Papias,  bishop  of  Hierapolis,  a  city  of  Asia,  is  said  to  have 
been  "  an  hearer  of  John,  and  a  companion  of  Polycarp."  He 
flourished  about  the  year  110  or  115.  Some  fragments  of  his 
writings  have  been  preserved.  Out  of  these,  the  following  passage 
is  the  only  one  that  I  have  been  able  to  find,  that  has  any  relation 
to  the  subject  under  debate.  It  is  cited  by  Eusebius,  in  his 
Ecclesiastical  History,  lib.  iii.  cap.  39. 

"  I  shall  not  think  it  grievous  to  set  down  in  writing,  with  my 
"  interpretations,  the  things  which  I  have  learned  of  the  presbyters, 
"  and  remember  as  yet  very  well,  being  fully  certified  of  their  truth. 
"  If  I  met  any  where  with  one  who  had  conversed  with  the 
"  presbyters,  I  inquired  after  the  sayings  of  the  presbyters  ;  what 
"  Andrew,  what  Peter,  what  Philip,  what  Thomas^  or  James  had 
"  said ;  what  John,  or  Matthew,  or  any  other  disciples  of  the 

more  bishops,  united  in  the  pastoral  charge,  and  having1,  in  all  respects 
an  official  equality.  When  this  is  the  case,  each  of  the  bishops  is  pre- 
sident or  moderator  of  the  eldership  in  turn.  In  some  Presbyterian 
churches,  the  bishop,  instead  of  having  one  or  more  colleagues,  of  equal 
authority  and  power  with  himself,  has  an  assistant  or  assistants.  These 
assistants,  though  clothed  with  the  whole  ministerial  character,  and 
capable,  without  any  other  ordination,  of  becoming-  pastors  themselves  ; 
yet  as  long  as  they  remain  in  this  situation,  they  bear  a  relation  to  the 
bishop  similar  to  that  which  curates  bear  to  the  rector,  in  some  episcopal 
churches  ;  and  of  course,  cannot  reg-ularly  baptize  or  administer  the 
Lord's  Supper  without  the  concurrence  of  the  bishop.  Ignatius,  there- 
fore, could  scarcely  give  a  more  perfect  representation  than  he  does  of 
Presbteyrian  government.  And  if  a  modern  Presbyterian  were  about  to 
speak  of  the  officers  of  his  church,  and  were  to  use  the  Greek  language 
as  Ignatius  did,  he  would  almost  necessarily  say  as  he  did,  Eirtntoaros, 
^rgs0-£(/Tcgo/*etf/4ctJtoi>0f.  So  perfectly  futile  is  the  allegation  that  this 
language  is  decisive  in  support  of  prelacy  !  It  is  absolutely  in  perfect 
coincidence  with  our  system. 
N 


98  LETTER  IV. 

"  Lord  were  wont  to  say ;  and  what  Ariston,  or  John  the  presby- 
"  ter,  said :  for  I  am  of  the  mind  that  I  could  not  profit  so  much 
"  by  reading  books,  as  by  attending  to  those  who  spake  with  the 
"  living  voice." 

The  only  thing  remarkable  in  this  passage,  is,  that  the  writer, 
obviously,  styles  the  apostles,  -presbyters  ;  and  this  when  speaking 
of  them,  not  with  the  lightness  of  colloquial  familiarity,  but  as 
oracles,  whose  authority  he  acknowledged,  whose  character  he 
revered,  and  whose  sayings  he  treasured  up.  Could  we  have  more 
satisfactory  evidence  that  this  title,  as  employed  in  the  primitive 
church,  was  not  considered  as  expressing  official  inferiority  in  those 
to  whom  it  was  applied  ? 

Irenceus,  who  was  a  disciple  of  Polycarp,  and  who  is  said  to 
have  suffered  martyrdom  about  the  year  202  after  Christ,  is  an 
important  and  decisive  witness  on  the  subject  before  us.  The 
following  passages  are  found  in  his  writings. 

Book  against  Heresies}  lib.  iii.  cap.  2.  "  When  we  challenge 
"  them  (the  heretics)  to  that  apostolical  tradition  which  is  preserved 
"  in  the  churches  through  the  succession  of  the  presbyters,  they 
"  oppose  the  tradition,  pretending  that  they  are  wiser,  not  only 
"  than  the  presbyters,  but  also  than  the  apostles." 

Lib.  iii.  cap.  3.  u  The  apostolic  tradition  is  present  in  every 
"  church.  We  can  enumerate  those  who  were  constituted  bishops 
"by  the  apostles  in  the  churches,  and  their  successors  even  to  us, 
"who  taught  no  such  thing.  By  showing  the  tradition  and 
"  declared  faith  of  the  greatest  and  most  ancient  church  of  Rome, 
"  which  she  received  from  the  apostles,  and  which  is  come  to  us 
"  through  the  succession  of  the  bishops,  we  confound  all  who 
"  conclude  otherwise  than  they  ought. 3? 

"  The  apostles,  founding  and  instructing  that  church,  (the  church 
"of  Rome)  delivered  to  Linus  the  Episcopate;  Anacletus  suc- 
"  ceeded  him ;  after  him  Clemens  obtained  the  Episcopate  from 
« the  apostles.  To  Clement  succeeded  Evaristus  ;  to  him  Alex- 
"  ander ;  then  Sixtus ;  and  after  him  Telesphorus ;  then 
'<  Hugynusj  after  him  Pius  ;  then  Anicetusj  and  when  Soter  had 
«  succeeded  Anicetus,  then  Eleutherius  had  the  episcopate  in  the 
«  twelfth  place.  By  this  appointment  and  instruction  that  tradition 
« in  the  church,  and  publication  of  the  truth,  which  is  from  the 
"  apostles,  is  come  to  us.'" 


TESTIMONY   OF  THE  FATHERS.  99 

«  Poly  carp,  also,  who  was  not  only  taught  by  the  apostles,  and 
"  conversed  with  many  of  those  who  had  seen  our  Lord ;  but  was 
"  also  appointed  by  the  apostles,  bishop  of  the  Cnurch  of  Smyrna 
« in  Asia." 

Lib.  iv.  cap.  43.  "  Obey  those  presbyters  in  the  Church  who 
"  have  the  succession  as  we  have  shown  from  the  Apostles  ;  who 
"  with  the  succession  of  the  Episcopate,  received  the  gift  of  truth, 
"  according  to  the  good  pleasure  of  the  Father." 

Lib.  iv.  cap-  44.  "  We  ought,  therefore,  to  adhere  to  those 
"  presbyters  who  keep  the  Apostle's  doctrine}  and  together  with 
"  thepresbyterial  succession,  do  show  forth  sound  speech.  Such 
"presbyters,  the  church  nourishes;  and  of  such  the  Prophet 
"  says  :  I  will  give  them  princes  in  peace,  and  bishops  in  righ- 
"  teousness.'7* 

Lib.  iv.  cap.  53.  "  True  knowledge  is  the  doctrine  of  the 
"  apostles  according  to  the  succession  of  bishops,  to  whom  they 
"  delivered  the  church  in  every  place,  which  doctrine  hath  reached 
"  us  preserved  in  its  most  full  delivery.77 

Lib.  v.  cap.  20.  "  These  are  far  later  than  the  bishops  to 
"  whom  the  apostles  delivered  the  churches :  and  this  we  have 
"  carefully  made  manifest  in  the  third  book.77 

Epistle  to  Victor,  then  Bishop  of  Horned    "  Those  presbyters 

*  It  will  be  observed  that  Clemens,  in  a  preceding  page,  applies  this 
text  to  the  bishops  constituted  by  the  apostles.  Irenaeus  here  applies  it  to 
presbyters,  whom  he  represents  as  receiving  and  conveying  the  apostolic 
succession. 

-\  Eusebius  tells  us,  that  the  occasion  on  which  Irenaeus  wrote  this 
letter  to  Victor^  then  bishop  of  Rome,  was  as  follows.  A  dispute  had 
arisen  about  the  proper  time  of  celebrating  Easter.  In  this  dispute,  the 
churches  of  Asia  took  one  side,  and  the  western  churches  another. 
Both  sides  declared  that  they  had  the  most  decided  apostolical  authority 
in  their  favour:  the  former  pleading  the  authority  of  John  and  Philip  ; 
and  the  latter  with  equal  confidence,  adducing  Peter  and  Paul  in 
justification  of  their  practice.  In  the  progress  of  this  dispute,  Victor, 
bishop  of  the  Romish  church,  issued  letters  proscribing  the  churches  of 
Asia,  and  the  neighbouring  provinces,  and  endeavouring  to  cut  them  off 
from  the  communion  of  the  faithful.  Upon  this  occasion  Irenaeus  address- 
ed to  him  the  letter  in  question,  showing  him  the  imprudence  and 
injustice  of  the  step  which  he  had  taken.  Eccles.  Hist.  1.  lib.  v.  cap.  24. 
These  facts  show,  1.  That  even  in  the  second  century  Christians  began 


100  LETTER  IV. 

"  before  Sotcr,  who  governed  the  church  which  thou,  Victor,  now 
"  governest,  (the  church  of  Rome)  I  mean  Anicetus,  Pius,  Hugy- 
"  nus,  Telesphorus,  and  Sixtus,  they  did  not  observe  it ;  (he  is 
"  speaking  of  the  day  of  keeping  Easter}  and  those  presbyters 
"  who  preceded  you,  though  they  did  not  observe  it  themselves, 
"  yet  sent  the  Eucharist  to  those  of  other  churches  who  did  ob- 
((  serve  it.  And  when  blessed  Polycarp,  in  the  days  of  Anicetus, 
"  came  to  Rome,  he  did  not  much  persuade  Anicetus  to  observe  it, 
"  as  he  {Anicetus)  declared  that  the  custom  of  the  Presbyters  who 
"  were  his  predecessors  should  be  retained." 

Epistle  to  Florinus.  "  This  doctrine,  to  speak  most  cautiously 
"  and  gently,  is  not  sound.  This  doctrine  disagreeth  with  the 
"  church,  and  bringeth  such  as  listen  to  it  into  extreme  impiety." 
(And  having  mentioned  Polycarp,  and  said  some  things  of  him, 
he  proceeds :)  "  I  am  able  to  testify  before  God,  that  if  that 
"  holy  and  apostolical  presbyter  had  heard  any  such  thing,  he 
"  would  at  once  have  exclaimed,  as  his  manner  was,  "  Good  God  ! 
"  into  what  times  hast  thou  reserved  me  !" 

The  foregoing  extracts  comprise  the  strongest  passages,  in  the 
writings  of  Ircnceus  that  bear  on  the  subject  before  us.  And  I 
take  for  granted  that  no  impartial  reader  can  cast  his  eye  on  them 
without  perceiving  how  strongly  and  unequivocally  they  support 
our  doctrine.  This  father  not  only  applies  the  names  bishop  and 
presbyter  to  the  same  persons,  but  he  does  it  in  a  way  which 
precludes  all  doubt  that  he  considers  them  as  only  different  titles 
for  the  same  office.  That  regular  succession  from  the  Apostles 
which  in  one  place  he  ascribes  to  bishops,  he  in  another  expressly 
ascribes  to  presbyters.  Nay,  he  explicitly  declares  thai  presbyters 
received  the  succession  of  the  Episcopate.  Those  ministers  whom 
he  mentions  by  name  as  having  presided  in  the  church  of  Home, 

to  teach  for  doctrines  the  commandments  of  men.  2.  That  even  so  near 
the  apostolic  age,  the  authority  of  the  apostles  was  confidently  quoted  in 
favour  of  opposite  opinions  and  practices,  plainly  showing1,  how  little 
reliance,  in  religious  controversies,  is  to  be  placed  on  any  testimony 
excepting  that  of  the  written  word  of  God.  3.  That  as  early  as  the  time  of 
Irenaeus,  the  principal  pastor  or  bishop  of  the  church  of  Home  had  begun 
to  usurp  that  pre-eminence,  which  afterwards  attained  such  a  wonderful 
height;  and  which  all  protestants  allow  to  be  totally  unscriptural  and 
antichristian. 


TESTIMONY  OF  THE  FATHERS.  101 

viz.  Ldnus,  Anadetus,  Clemens,  &c.  and  whom  he  in  one  instance 
calls  Bishops,  he  in  another  denominates  presbyters.  In  one 
paragraph  he  speaks  of  the  apostolic  doctrine  as  handed  down 
through  the  succession  of  bishops ;  in  another,  he  as  positively 
affirms  that  the  same  apostolic  doctrine  is  handed  down  through 
the  succession  of  presbyters.  In  short,  the  apostolical  succession, 
the  Episcopal  succession,  and  the  presbyterial  succession,  are 
interchangeably  ascribed  to  the  same  persons,  and  expressly  repre- 
sented as  the  same  thing.  What  could  be  more  conclusive  ?  If 
this  venerable  father  had  been  taking  pains  to  show  that  he 
employed  the  terms  bishop  and  presbyter  as  different  titles  for  the 
office,  he  could  scarcely  have  kept  a  more  scrupulous  and  exact 
balance  between  the  dignities,  powers,  and  duties  connected  with 
each  title,  and  ascribed  interchangeably  to  both. 

But  much  is  made  by  the  friends  of  prelacy  of  that  portion  of 
the  foregoing  extracts  in  which  Irenceus  speaks  of  the  succession 
in  particular  churches  as  flowing  through  single  individuals; 
whereas  there  were,  doubtless,  a  number  of  presbyters  in  each  of 
the  churches  to  which  he  refers.  "  Why,"  say  they,  "  single  out 
"  Linus,  Anadetus,  &c.  in  the  church  of  Rome,  when  there  were 
"  probably  many  contemporaneous  presbyters  in  that  church  r" 
The  answer  is  obvious  and  easy.  One  of  the  presbyters  was,  no 
doubt,  the  pastor,  or  president,  and  the  others  his  assistants.  This 
has  often  happened  in  Presbyterian  churches,  both  in  ancient  and 
modern  times.  And  surely  a  succession  may  flow  as  properly  and 
perfectly  through  a  series  of  pastors  as  of  prelates.  This  at  once 
illustrates  and  harmonizes  all  that  Irenceus  has  said. 

The  testimony  of  Justin  Martyr,  who  also  lived  in  the  second 
century,  comes  next  in  order.  In  describing  the  mode  of  worship 
adopted  by  the  Christians  in  his  day,  says,  "  Prayers  being  ended, 
bread  and  a  cup  of  water  and  wine,  are  then  brought  to  the  presi- 
dent of  the  brethren,  and  he,  receiving  them,  offers  praise  and 
"  glory  to  the  Father  of  all  things  through  the  name  of  the 
"  Son  and  the  Holy  Spirit  :  and  he  is  long  in  giving  thanks,  for 
"  that  we  are  thought  worthy  of  these  blessings.  When  he  has 
"  ended  prayer,  and  giving  of  thanks,  the  whole  people  present 
u  signify  their  approbation  by  saying,  amen.  The  president 
"  having  given  thanks,  and  the  whole  people  having  expressed 
"  their  approbation,  those  that  are -called  called  among  us  deacons, 


102  LETTER  IV. 

"  distribute  to  every  one  of  those  that  are  present,  that  they  may 
"  partake  of  the  bread  and  wine  and  water,  for  which  thanks  have 
"  been  given  ;  and  to  those  that  are  not  present,  they  carry." 
And  again,  a  little  afterwards,  he  tells  us,  "  Upon  Sunday,  all 
"  those  who  live  in  cities  and  country-towns,  or  villages  belonging 
"  to  them,  meet  together,  and  the  writings  of  the  apostles  and 
"  prophets  are  read,  as  the  time  will  allow.  And  the  reader  being 
"  silent,  (or  having  ended)  the  president  delivers  a  discourse, 
"  instructing  and  exhorting  to  an  imitation  of  those  things  that  are 
"  comely.  We  then  all  rise  up,  and  pour  out  prayers.  And,  as 
"  we  have  related,  prayers  being  ended,  bread  and  wine  and  water 
"  are  brought,  and  the  president,  as  above,  gives  thanks  accord- 
"  ing  to  his  ability  ;*  and  the  people  signify  their  approbation, 
"  saying,  amen.  Distribution  and  communication  is  then  made  to 
"  every  one  that  has  joined  in  giving  thanks ;  and  to  those  that 
"  are  absent  it  is  sent  by  the  Deacons.  And  those  that  are 
"  wealthy  and  willing,  contribute  according  to  their  pleasure. 
"  What  is  collected  is  deposited  in  the  hands  of  the  president,  and 
"  he  helps  the  orphans  and  widows,  those  that  are  in  want  by 
"  reason  of  sickness,  or  any  other  cause  ;  those  that  are  in  bonds, 
"  and  that  come  strangers  from  abroad.  He  is  the  kind  guardian 
"  of  all  that  are  in  want.  We  all  assemble  on  Sunday,  because 
"  God,  dispelling  the  darkness  and  informing  the  first  matter, 
"  created  the  world ;  and  also  because,  upon  that  day,  Jesus  Christ 
"  our  Saviour  rose  from  the  dead."  Apol.  1.  p.  95 — 97» 

It  is  generally  agreed,  by  Episcopal  writers  as  well  as  others, 
that  the  officer  several  times  mentioned  in  these  extracts  from 
Justin  Martyr,  viz.  the  president,  was  the  bishop  of  the  church, 
whose  public  service  is  described.  Now  as  this  venerable  father 

*  This  passage  is  one  among1  numerous  testimonies  with  which  anti- 
quity abounds,  that  there  were  no  Forms  of  Prayer  used  in  the  primitive 
church.  Each  pastor  or  bishop  led  the  devotions  of  his  congregation 
according  to  his  ability.  For  the  first  three  hundred  years  after  Christ,  no 
trace  of  prescribed  liturgies  is  to  be  found.  The  liturgies  which  go  under 
the  names  of  Peter,  Mark,  James,  Clement,  and  Basil,  have  been  given 
up  as  forgeries,  even  by  the  most  respectable  Episcopal  writers.  See 
A  Discourse  concerning  Liturgies,  by  the  Rev.  David  Clarkson,  a  Presby- 
terian minister  of  England,  the  venerable  ancestor  of  the  family  of  that 
name  in  this  city. 


TESTIMONY  OF  THE  FATHERS.  103 

is  obviously  describing  the  manner  in  which  each  particular  con- 
gregation conducted  its  worship  in  his  day,  it  follows,  that  in  the 
time  of  Justin,  every  congregation  had  its  bishop :  or,  in  other 
words,  that  this  was  a  title  applied  in  primitive  times  to  the  ordi- 
nary pastors  of  particular  churches. 

The  testimony  of  Clemens  Alexandrinus,  who  flourished  at  the 
close  of  the  second  century,  is  likewise  in  favour  of  our  doctrine 
concerning  the  Christian  ministry.  Clement  was  a  presbyter  of  the 
church  in  Alexandria,  and  a  prodigy  of  learning  in  his  day.  The 
following  extracts  from  his  writings  will  enable  you  to  judge  in 
what  light  he  ought  to  be  considered  as  a  witness  on  this  subject. 

P-czdagog.  lib.  1.  "  We  who  have  rule  over  the  churches, 
u  are  shepherds  or  pastors,  after  the  image  of  the  Good  Shep- 
"  herd."  Ibid.  lib.  iii.  In  proof  of  the  impropriety  of  women 
wearing  foreign  hair,  among  other  arguments  he  uses  this,  "  On 
«<  whom,  or  what  will  the  presbyter  impose  his  hand  ?  Ta  whom 
"  or  what  will  he  give  his  blessing  ?  Not  to  the  woman  who  is 
"  adorned,  but  to  strange  locks  of  hair,  and  through  them  to  an- 
"  other's  head."  Ibid.  "  Many  other  commands,  appertaining 
"  to  select  persons,  are  written  in  the  sacred  books ;  some  to 
"presbyters,  some  to  bishops,  some  to  deacons,  and  some  to 
"  widows." 

Stromat.  lib.  i.  fi  Just  so  in  the  church,  the  presbyters  are 
"  intrusted  with  the  dignified  ministry ;  the  deacons  with  the  sub- 
"  ordinate."  Ibid.  lib.  iii.  Having  cited  the  apostolic  directions 
concerning  marriage,  in  1  Tim.  v.  14.  &c.  he  adds,  "  But  he  must 
"  be  the  husband  of  one  wife  only,  whether  he  be  a  presbyter,  or 
"  deacon,  or  layman,  if  he  would  use  matrimony  without  repre- 
"  hension."  Again — "  What  can  they  say  to  these  things  who 
"  inveigh  against  marriage  ?  Since  the  apostle  enjoins,  that  the 
"  bishop  to  be  set  over  the  church  be  one  who  rules  his  own  house 
"  well."  Ibid.  lib.  vi.  "  This  man  is  in  reality  a-presbyter,  and 
"  a  true  deacon  of  the  purpose  of  God — not  ordained  of  men,  nor 
"  because  a  presbyter,  therefore  esteemed  a  righteous  man ;  but 
"  because  a  righteous  man,  therefore  now  reckoned  in  the  pres- 
"  bytery;  and  though  here  upon  earth  he  hath  not  been  honoured 
"  with  the  chief  seat,  yet  he  shall  sit  down  among  the  four  and 
"  twenty  thrones,  judging  the  people,  as  John  says  in  the  Revela- 
"  tion."  Again,  Ibid.  "  Now  in  the  church  here,  the  progres- 


104  LETTER  IV. 

"  sions  of  bishops,  presbyters,  deacons,  I  deem  to  be  imitations  of 
"  the  evangelical  glory,  and  of  that  dispensation  which  the  Scrip- 
"  tures  tell  us  they  look  for,  who  following  the  steps  of  the  apos- 
"  ties,  have  lived  according  to  the  Gospel  in  the  perfection  of 
"  righteousness.  These  men,  the  apostle  writes,  being  taken  up 
"  into  the  clouds,  shall  first  minister  as  deacons,  then  be  admitted 
"  to  a  rank  in  the  presbytery,  according  to  the  progression  in 
"  glory:  for  glory  differeth  from  glory,  until  they  grow  up  to" a 
"  perfect  man."  Again — "  Of  that  service  of  God  about  which 
"  men  are  conversant,  one  is  that  which  jnakes  them  better  :  the 
"  other  ministerial.  In  like  manner  in  the  church,  i\\e  presbyters 
"  retain  the  form  of  that  kind  which  mikes  men  better ;  and  the 
"  deacons  that  which  is  ministerial.  In  both  these  ministries,  the 
u  angels  serve  God  in  the  dispensation  of  earthly  tilings."  Again, 
in  his  book,  Quis  dives  salvandus  sit,  he  has  the  following  singular 
passage:  "Hear  a  fable,  and  yet  not  a  fable,  but  a  true  story 
"  reported  of  John  the  apostle,  delivered  to  us,  and  kept  in 
"  memory.  After  the  death  of  the  tyrant,  when  he  (John)  had 
"  returned  to  Ephesus,  out  of  the  isle  of  Patmos,  being  desired,  he 
"  went  to  the  neighbouring  nations,  where  he  appointed  biships, 
"  where  he  set  in  order  whole  cities,  and  where  he  chose  by  lot 
"  unto  the  ecclesiastical  function,  of  those  who  had  been  pointed 
"  out  by  the  Spirit  as  by  name.  When  he  was  come  to  a  certain 
'*  city,  not  far  distant,  the  name  of  which  some  mention,  and 
"  among  other  things  had  refreshed  the  brethren  ;  beholding  a 
a  young  man  of  a  portly  body,  a  gracious  countenance,  and  fervent 
"  mind,  he  looked  upon  the  bishop,  who  was  set  over  all,  and  said, 
"  I  commit  this  young  man  to  thy  custody,  in  presence  of  the 
"  church,  and  Christ  bearing  me  witness.  When  he  had  received 
"  the  charge,  and  promised  the  performance  of  all  things  relative 
"  to  it,  John  again  urged,  and  made  protestation  of  the  same 
"  thing;  and  afterwards  departed  to  Ephesus.  And  the  presbyter, 
u  taking  the  young  man,  brought  him  to  his  own  house,  nourished, 
"  comforted,  and  cherished  him  ;  and  at  length  baptized  him." 

From  these  extracts  you  will  perceive,  that  Clement,  though  a 
presbyter  of  the  church  of  Alexandria,  speaks  of  himself  as  one  of 
its  governors,  and  claims  the  title  of  a  "  shepherd  or  pastor,  after 
the  image  of  the  good  Shepherd,"  a  title  which  the  greater  pan  of 
episcopal  writers  acknowledge  to  have  been  given  in  the  primitive 


TESTIMONY   OF  THE  FATHERS.  105 

church  to  the  highest  order  of  ministers.  He  represents  the 
presbyters  as  intrusted  with  the  dignified  ministry,  and  the 
deacons  with  the  subordinate,  without  suggesting  any  thing  of  a 
more  dignified  order.  He  applies  the  apostolic  direction  in 
1  Tim.  ii.  4.  in  one  place  to  bishops  and  in  another  to  presbyters, 
which  would  have  no  pertinency  if  he  did  not  refer  in  both  cases 
to  the  same  order  of  ministers.  He  compares  the  grades  of  church 
officers  with  the  orders  of  angels  ;  but  we  read  only  of  angels  and 
archangels.  It  is  observable  also,  that  the  person  to  whom  John 
committed  the  young  man,  is  in  one  place  called  a  bishop,  and 
immediately  afterwards  a  presbyter,  which  we  cannot  suppose 
would  have  been  done,  had  the  superiority  of  order,  for  which 
prelatists  contend,  been  known  in  his  day.  It  is  further  supposed 
by  some,  that  when  Clement  speaks  of  imposition  of  hands  on  the 
heads  of  those  females  who  wore  false  hair,  he  alludes  lo  the  rite 
of  Coiifirmation.  If  this  be  so,  which  is  extremely  doubtful,  it  is 
the  first  hint  we  have,  in  all  antiquity,  of  this  rite  being  practised, 
but,  unfortunately  for  the  Episcopal  cause,  the  imposition  of  hands 
here  mentioned,  is  ascribed  to  presbyters.  "  On  whom  or  what  will 
the  presbyter  impose  his  hands?"  From  these  circumstances,  we 
may  confidently  infer,  that  Clement  knew  nothing  of  an  order  of 
bishops,  distinct  from  and  superior  to  presbyters,  and  that  the 
purity  of  the  apostolic  age  was  not,  when  he  wrote,  in  this  respect, 
materially  corrupted. 

It  is  readily  granted,  that  this  father  once  speaks  of  "  bishops, 
"presbyters,  and  deacons,"  and  once  more,  inverting  the  order,  of 
"presbyters,  bishops,  and  deacons,''  He  also  represents  these  as 
"  progressions  which  imitate  the  angelic  glory,"  and  refers  to  the 
"  chief  seat  in  the  presbytery."  But  none  of  these  modes  of 
expression  afford  the  least  countenance  to  the  Episcopal  doctrine. 
He  no  where  tells  us  that  there  was  any  difference  of  order,  in  his 
day,  between  bishops  and  presbyters  ;  and  far  less  does  he  convey 
any  hint,  that  only  the  former  ordained  and  confirmed.  He  says 
nothing  of  either  of  these  rites,  directly  and  indirectly,  in  any  of 
his  works.  And  when  the  friends  of  Episcopacy  suppose,  that 
the  mere  use  of  the  words  bishop  and  presbyters,  establishes  their 
claim,  they  only  adopt  the  convenient  method  of  taking  the  point 
in  dispute  for  granted,  without  a  shadow  of  proof.  If  we  suppose 
the  bishop,  alluded  to  by  Clement,  to  be  the  pastor  of  the  church^ 
O 


106  LETTER  IV. 

the  president  or  presiding  presbyter,  and  the  other  presbyters  to  be 
his  assistants,  it  will  account  for  the  strongest  expressions  above 
recited,  and  will  entirely  agree  with  the  language  of  scripture,  and 
of  all  the  preceding  fathers. 

I  have  now  gone  through  the  testimony  of  those  fathers  who 
lived  and  wrote  within  the  first  two  centuries  after  Christ,*  the 
limits  which  I  prescribed  to  myself  at  the  beginning  of  this  letter. 
And  I  can  solemnly  assure  you,  my  brethren,  that  the  foregoing 
extracts,  besides  what  I  have  deemed  favourable  to  our  own  cause, 
also  contain,  to  the  best  of  my  knowledge  and  belief,  the  strongest 
passages  that  are  to  be  found,  within  that  period,  in  ^support  of 
diocesan  Episcopacy.  I  may  confidently  challenge  the  most 
zealous  Episcopalian  to  produce,  out  of  the  writers  of  those  times, 
a  single  sentence  which  speaks  more  fully  or  decidedly  in  favour 
of  his  system,  than  those  which  have  been  presented.  If  there  be 
any  such,  I  have  not  been  so  fortunate  as  to  meet  with  them  ;  nor 
have  the  ablest  Episcopal  writers  with  whom  I  have  been  conver- 
sant, appeared  to  know  of  their  existence.  You  have  before  you, 
not  merely  a  specimen  of  those  quotations  which  they  consider  as 
most  favourable  to  their  cause,  but  in  fact,  the  strongest  and  best 
passages  for  their  purpose,  that  they  are  able  to  produce. 

Let  me,  then,  appeal  to  your  candour,  whether  the  assertions 
made  at  the  beginning  of  this  letter,  are  not  fully  supported.  Have 
you  seen  a  single  passage  which  proves  that  Christian  Bishops, 
within  the  first  two  centuries,  were,  in  fact,  an  order  of  clergy 
distinct  from  those  presbyters  who  were  authorized  to  preach  and 
administer  sacraments,  and  superior  to  them  ?  Have  you  seen  a 
sentence  which  furnishes  even  probable  testimony,  that  these 
bishops  received,  as  such,  a  new  and  superior  ordination ;  that 
each  bishop  had  under  him  a  number  of  congregations  with  their 
pastors,  whom  he  governed  ;  and  that  with  this  superior  order 

*  The  well  informed  reader  will  observe,  that  I  have  taken  no  notice 
of  certain  writings,  called  the  Apostolical  Canons,  and  the  Apostolical 
Constitutions,  which  have  been  sometimes  quoted  in  this  controversy. 
They  are  so  generally  considered  as  altogether  unworthy  of  credit,  that 
I  deem  no  apology  necessary  for  this  omission.  When  Episcopal  writers 
of  the  greatest  eminence  style  them  "  impudent  forgeries,"  and  their 
author  «« a  cheat,  unworthy  of  credit,"  I  may  well  be  excused  for  passing 
them  by 


TESTIMONY   OF  THE  FATHERS.  107 

exclusively  was  deposited  the  power  of  ordination  ?  Have  you 
found  even  plausible  evidence  in  support  of  any  one  of  these  articles 
of  Episcopal  belief?  Above  all,  have  you  found  a  syllable  which 
intimates  that  these  were  not  on\y  facts,  but  also  that  they  were 
deemed  of  so  much  importance  as  to  be  essential  to  the  very 
existence  of  the  church  ?  Even  supposing  you  had  found  such 
declarations  in  some  or  all  of  the  early  fathers ;  what  then  ? 
Historic  fact  is  not  Divine  institution.  But  have  you  found  the 
fact  ?  I  will  venture  to  say,  you  have  not.  We  are  so  far  from 
being  told  by  the  writers  within  this  period,  "  with  one  voice,"  that 
bishops  are  a  superior  order  to  preaching  presbyters,  that  not  one 
among  them  says  any  thing  like  it.  Instead  of  finding  them 
"  unanimously,"  and  "  constantly"  declaring  that  the  right  of 
ordination  is  exclusively  vested  in  bishops  as  a  superior  order,  we 
cannot  find  a  single  passage  in  which  such  information,  or  any 
thing  that  resembles  it,  is  conveyed.  And,  with  respect  to  con- 
firmation, which  is  claimed  as  one  of  the  appropriate  duties  of  the 
diocesan  bishop,  it  is  not  so  much  as  once  mentioned  by  any 
authentic  writer,  within  the  first  two  hundred  years,  as  a  cere- 
mony xvhich  was  in  use  at  all,*  and  much  less  as  appropriated 
to  a  particular  order  of  clergy. 

On  the  contrary,  we  have  seen  that  these  writers,  with  remark- 
able uniformity,  apply  the  terms  bishop,  president,  shepherd, pastor, 
interchangeably  to  the  same  officers ;  that  the  apostolical  succession 
is  expressly  ascribed  to  presbyters  ;  that  a  bishop  is  represented  as 
performing  duties  which  would  involve  absurdity  on  any  other 
supposition  than  that  of  his  being  the  pastor  of  a  single Jlock  ,  and 
that  in  all  cases  in  which  any  distinction  is  made  between  bishops 
and  presbyters,  it  evidently  points  out,  either  the  distinction 
between  preaching  and  ruling  presbyters  ;  or  that  between  those 
who  were  fixed  pastors  of  churches,  and  those  who,  though  in  full 
orders,  and  of  the  same  rank,  had  no  pastoral  charge,  and  until 
they  obtained  such  a  place,  acted  the  part  of  assistants  to  pastors. 
In  short,  when  the  testimony  of  the  early  fathers  is  thoroughly  sifted, 
it  will  be  found  to  yield  nothing  to  the  Episcopal  cause  but  simply 

~ 

*  Unless  the  doubtful  passage  before  quoted  from  Clement  Jtlexandri- 
nus,  may  be  supposed  to  refer  to  this  rite:  and  if  so,  then  it  will  follow, 
from  that  passage,  that,  in  the  days  of  Clemens,  presbyters  confirmed. 


108  LETTER  IV. 

\ 
the  title  bishop.     Now  when  the  advocates  of  Episcopacy  find  this 

title  in  the  New  Testament  evidently  applied  to  presbyters,  they 
gravely  tell  us  that  the  mere  title  is  nothing,  and  that  the  interchange 
of  these  titles  is  nothing,  but  that  immediately  after  the  apostolic 
age,  the  title  of  bishop  became  appropriated  to  the  higher  order. 
But  when  we  find  precisely  the  same  titles  in  the  early  fathers,  and 
the  same  interchange  of  these  titles,  they  are  compelled  either  to 
alter  their  tone,  and  to  abandon  their  former  reasoning,  or  else  to 
submit  to  the  mortification  of  being  condemned  out  of  their  own 
mouths. 

The  friends  of  prelacy  have  often,  and  with  much  apparent 
confidence,  challenged  us  to  produce  out  of  all  the  early  fathers,  a 
single  instance  of  an  ordination  performed  by  presbyters.  Those 
who  give  this  challenge  might  surely  be  expected,  in  all  decency 
and  justice,  to  have  a  case  of  Episcopal  ordination  ready  to  be 
brought  forward,  from  the  same  venerable  records.  But  have  they 
ever  produced  such  a  case  ?  They  have  not.  Nor  can  they  pro- 
duce it.  As  there  is,  unquestionably,  no  instance  mentioned  in 
scripture  of  any  person,  with  the  title  of  bishop,  performing  an 
ordination  ;  so  it  is  equally  certain  that  no  such  instance  has  yet 
been  found  in  any  Christian  writer  within  the  Jirst  two  centuries. 
Nor  can  a  single  instance  be  produced  of  a  person  already  ordained 
as  a  presbyter,  receiving  a  new  and  second  ordination  as  bishop. 
To  find  a  precedent  favourable  to  their  doctrine,  the  advocates  of 
Episcopacy  have  been  under  the  necessity  of  wandering  into 
periods  when  the  simplicity  of  the  Gospel  had,  in  a  considerable 
degree,  given  place  to  the  devices  of  men ;  and  when  the  man  of 
sin  had  commenced  that  system  of  unhallowed  usurpation,  which 
which  for  so  many  centuries  corrupted  and  degraded  the  church 
of  God. 

Such  is  the  result  of  the  appeal  to  the  early  fathers.  They  are 
so  far  from  giving  even  a  semblance  of  support  to  the  Episcopal 
claim,  that,  like  the  Scriptures,  they  every  where  speak  a  language 
wholly  inconsistent  with  it,  and  favourable  only  to  the  doctrine  of 
ministerial  parity.  What  then  shall  we  say  of  the  assertions  so 
often  and  so  confidently  made,  that  the  doctrine  of  a  superior  order 
of  bishops  has  been  maintained  in  the  church,  "  from  the  earliest 
"  ages,"  in  "  the  ages  immediately  succeeding  the  apostles,"  and 


TESTIMONY  OF  THE  FATHERS.  109 

by  "  all  the  fathers,  from  the  beginning  ?"  What  shall  we  say  of 
the  assertion,  that  the  Scriptures,  interpreted  by  the  writings  of  the 
early  fathers,  decidedly  support  the  same  doctrine  ?  I  will  only 
say,  that  those  who  find  themselves  able  to  justify  such  assertions, 
must  have  been  much  more  successful  in  discovering  early  autho- 
rities in  aid  of  their  cause,  than  the  most  diligent,  learned,  and 
keen-sighted  of  their  predecessors. 


LETTER  V. 

TESTIMONY  OF  SOME  OF  THE  LATER  FATHERS. 

CHRISTIAN  BRETHREN, 

IN  citing  the  fathers,  it  was  necessary  to  draw  a  distinct  line 
between  those  who  are  to  be  admitted  as  credible  witnesses,  and 
those  whose  testimony  is  to  be  suspected.  I  have  accordingly 
drawn  this  line  at  the  close  of  the  second  century.  About  this 
time  as  will  be  afterwards  shown,  among  many  other  corruptions, 
that  of  clerical  imparity  appeared  in  the  church  ;  and  even  the 
Papacy,  as  we  have  before  seen,  had  begun  to  urge  its  anti- 
christian  claims.  From  the  commencement  of  the  third  century, 
therefore,  every  witness  on  the  subject  of  Episcopacy  is  to  be 
received  with  caution.  As  it  is  granted,  on  all  hands,  that  the 
mystery  of  iniquity  had  then  begun  to  work :  as  great  and  good 
men  are  known,  from  this  time  to  have  countenanced  important 
errors,  errors  acknowledged  to  be  such  by  Episcopalians  as  well  as 
ourselves:  as  uncommanded  rites  and  forms,  both  of  Jewish  and 
Pagan  origin,  began  to  be  introduced  into  Christian  worship,  and 
to  have  a  stress  laid  upon  them  as  unreasonable  as  it  was  unwar- 
ranted 5  we  are  compelled  to  examine  the  writers  from  the  com- 
mencement of  the  third  century  downwards,  with  the  jealousy 
which  we  feel  towards  men  who  stand  convicted  of  having  departed 
from  the  simplicity  of  the  gospel ;  and  concerning  some  of  whom 
it  is  perfectly  well  known,  that  many  of  their  alleged  facts  are  as 
false  as  their  principles* 

But  though  the  fathers  from  the  beginning  of  the  third  century 
are  not  to  be  contemplated  with  the  same  respect,  nor  relied  upon 
with  the  same  confidence  as  their  predecessors  ;  still  they  deserve 
much  attention  ;  and  in  the  perusal  of  their  writings,  we  shall  find 
many  passages  which  confirm  the. doctrine  and  the  statements 
exhibited  in  the  foregoing  pages.  We  shall  sometimes,  indeed, 
meet  with  modes  of  expression  and  occasional  hints,  which  indi- 
cate that  the  love  of  pre-eminence,  which  has  so  much  disturbed 


TESTIMONY  OF  THE  FATHERS.  Ill 

the  church  as  well  as  the  state,  had  begun  to  form  into  a  system  its 
plans  and  claims.  Not  a  sentence,  however,  can  be  found  until 
the  fourth  century,  which  gives  any  intimation  that  bishops  were 
considered  as  a  different  order  (rom  presbyters;  or  that  the  former 
were  peculiarly  invested  with  the  ordaining  power.  Let  us  then 
inquire  in  what  manner  some  of  these  later  fathers  speak  on  the 
subject  under  consideration. 

Tertullian  began  to  flourish  about  the  year  200.  His  writings 
are  voluminous,  and  their  authenticity  is  generally  admitted.  And 
though  he  has  been  often  quoted  by  our  opponents  in  this  contro- 
versy, as  a  witness  favourable  to  their  cause,  yet  if  I  mistake  not, 
a  little  attention  to  the  few  hints  which  he  drops  on  this  subject, 
will  show  that  his  testimony  is  directly  of  an  opposite  kind.  The 
following  passages  are  found  in  his  works. 

Apolog.  "  In  our  religious  assemblies  certain  approved  elders 
"preside,  who  have  obtained  their  office  by  merit  and  not  by 
"  bribes."  De  Corona.  "  We  receive  the  sacrament  of  the  Lord's 
"  Supper  from  the  hands  of  none  but  the  presidents  of  our  assem- 
"  blies."  In  the  same  work,  cap.  3.  he  informs  us,  that  the  Chris- 
tians among  whom  he  dwelt,  were  in  the  habit  of  receiving  the 
Lord's  Supper  three  times  in  each  week,  viz.  on  Wednesdays  and 
Fridays,  as  well  as  on  the  Lord's  days.  Ibid.  "  Before  we  go 
"  to  the  water  to  be  baptized,  we  first  in  the  church  under  the 
"  hand  of  the  president,  profess  to  renounce  the  devil."  De 
Baptismo.  "  It  remains  that  I  remind  you  of  the  custom  of 
"  giving  and  receiving  baptism.  The  'right  of  giving  this  ordi- 
"  nance  belong  to  the  highest  priest,  who  is  the  bishop;  then 
"  to  elders  and  deacons ;  yet  not  without  the  authority  of  the 
ct  bishop,  for  the  sake  of  the  honour  of  the  church.  This  being 
"  secured,  peace  is  secured;  otherwise,  even  the  laity  have  the 
"  right."  He  then  goes  on  to  observe,  that  although  the  laity 
have  the  right  of  baptizing  in  cases  of  necessity,  yet  "  that  they 
"  ought  to  be  modest,  and  not  to  assume  to  themselves  the  ap- 
"  pointed  office  of  the  bishop.  De  Hceretic.  "  Let  them  (the 
"  heretics)  produce  the  original  of  their  churches  ;  let  them  turn 
"  over  the  roll  of  their  bishops  ;  so  running  down  in  a  continued 
"  succession,  that  their  first  bishop  had  some  one  of  the  apostles, 
"  or  of  the  apostolic  men  (who  persevered  with  the  apostles)  for  his 
"  author  and  predecessor.  Thus  the  apostolical  churches  have 


112  LETTER  V, 

"  their  rolls,  as  the  church  of  Smyrna  has  Potycarp  constituted 
"  there  by  John,  and  the  church  of  Home,  Clement  ordained  by 
"  Peter.  And  the  other  churches  can  tell  who  were  ordained 
"  bishops  over  them  by  the  apostles,  and  who  have  been  their  suc- 
"  cessors  to  this  day. 

These  quotations  are  the  strongest  that  Episcopalians  produce 
from  Tertullian  in  support  of  their  system.  Let  us  examine  them. 
This  father  tells  us,  that  in  his  day,  presbyters  presided  in  their 
assemblies  5  that  the  presidents  of  their  assemblies  alone,  in  ordi- 
nary cases,  baptized;  and  that  they  received  the  Lord's  Supper 
from  no  other  hands  but  those  of  the  presidents :  and  at  the  same 
time  he  informs  us,  that  administering  baptism  is  the  appropriate 
right  of  the  Ugliest  Priest,  who  is  the  bishop.  What  are  we  to  infer 
from  this  representation,  but  that  presbyter,  president,  and  bishop, 
are  employed  by  Tertullian  as  titles  of  the  same  men  ?  Again  ; 
this  father,  while  he  declares  that  each  bishop  or  president  per- 
formed all  the  baptisms  for  his  flock,  and  that  they  received  the 
eucharist  from  no  other  hands  than  his,  mentions  that  they  were 
in  the  habit  of  attending  on  the  eucharist  three  times  in  each  week. 
Now  the  man  who  performed  every  baptism  in  the  church  under 
his  care,  and  who  administered  the  Lord's  Supper  three  times  every 
week  to  all  the  members  of  his  church,  could  only  have  been  the 
pastor  of  one  congregation.  To  suppose  that  any  minister,  how- 
ever great  his  activity  and  zeal,  could  statedly  perform  this  service 
for  more  than  a  single  church,  involves  a  manifest  impossibility. 
Nor  is  this  all  :  absurdity  is  added  to  impossibility,  by  supposing, 
as  Episcopalians  must,  that  the  bishop  did  all  this  when  he  had 
many  presbyters  under  him,  who  were  all  invested  by  the  very 
nature  of  their  office,  with  the  power  of  administering  both  sacra- 
ments as  well  as  himself. 

But  it  will  be  asked — why  then  is  the  bishop  called  by  Tertullian 
the  highest  Priest?  Does  not  this  expression  indicate  that  there 
was  one  priest  in  a  church,  at  that  time,  who  had  some  kind  of 
superiority  over  the  other  priests  of  the  same  church  ?  I  answer, 
this  expression  implies  no  superiority  of  order.  The  highest  priest 
might  have  been  the  only  pastor  of  the  church  ;  nor  is  there  any 
thing  in  the  title  inconsistent  with  this  supposition.  To  draw  a 
conclusion  either  in  favour  of  diocesan  Episcopacy,  or  against  rt, 
from  language  so  entirely  ambiguous  in  its  import,  is  surely  more 


TESTIMONY  OF  THE  FATHERS.  1 1 3 

calculated  to  expose  the  weakness  than  to  exhibit  the  strength  of 
the  cause  in  which  it  is  adduced.  Besides  ;  Tertullian  informs  us 
that  this  bishop,  or  highest  priest,  was  alone  invested  with  the 
right  of  baptizing  and  administering  the  Lord's  Supper  ;  that  the 
bishop  might,  when  he  thought  proper,  empower  elders  and  deacons 
to  baptize;  and  that  even  private  Christians,  who  bore  no  office 
in  the  church,  might  also  baptize  in  cases  of  necessity.  But  still 
he  declares  that  administering  baptism  was  "  the  appointed  office 
of  the  bishop,"  and  that  they  received  the  Lord's  Supper  from  no 
other  hands  than  his.  Either,  then,  Tertullian  writes  in  a  very 
confused  and  contradictory  manner,  or  else  both  the  bishop  and 
elders  mentioned  by  him  are  officers  of  a  very  different  character 
from  those  who  are  distinguished  by  the  same  titles  in  modern 
Episcopal  churches.  His  highest  priest  was  evidently  no  other 
than  the  pastor  of  a  single  congregation  ;  the  president  of  the 
assembly,  and  of  line  presbytery  or  eldership,  which  belonged,  like 
himself,  to  a  particular  church. 

With  respect  to  the  passage  quoted  above,  in  which  this 
father  speaks  of"  the  roll  of  bishops,"  and  of  the  line  of  bishops 
running  down  in  a  continual  succession,  it  is  nothing  to  the  purpose 
of  those  who  adduce  it  to  support  diocesan  Episcopacy.  What 
kind  of  bishops  were  those  of  whom  Tertullian  here  speaks  ?  were 
they  parochial  01  diocesan  ?  If  we  consider  them,  as  other  passages 
in  his  writings  compel  us  to  consider  them,  as  the  pastors  of  single 
congregations,  then  the  obvious  construction  of  the  passage  is 
perfectly  agreeable  to  Presbyterian  principles.  But,  what  estab- 
lishes this  construction  is,  that  Irencem,  who  was  nearly  contem- 
porary with  Tertullian,  in  a  passage  quoted  in  a  preceding  page, 
in  a  similar  appeal  to  the  heretics,  speaks  of  the  list  or  roll  of 
presbyters,  and  represents  the  apostolical  succession  as  flowing 
through  the  line  of  presbyters ;  an  incontestible  proof  that  the 
words  bishop  and  presbyter  were  used  by  both  these  fathers,  as 
convertible  titles  for  the  same  office. 

Cyprian,  the  venerable  bishop  of  Carthage,  who  flourished  and 
wrote  about  the  year  250,  is  often  quoted  by  Episcopal  writers  as 
a  strong  witness  in  their  favour.  The  following  quotations  will 
show  in  what  light  his  testimony  ought  to  be  viewed.  Epist.  73. 
"  Whence  we  understand,  that  it  is  lawful  for  none  but  the  presi- 
dents of  the  church  to  baptize  and  grant  remission  of  sins." 
P 


114  LETTER  V. 

And  again,  Epist.  67«  "  The  people  should  not  flatter  themselves 
"  that  they  are  free  from  fault,  when  they  communicate  with  a. 
"  sinful  priest,  and  give  their  consent  to  the  presidency  of  a  wicked 
"  bishop.  Wherefore  a  flock  that  is  obedient  to  God's  commands, 
"  and  fears  him,  ought  to  separate  from  a  wicked  bishop,  and  not 
"  to  join  in  the  sacrifices  of  a  sacrilegious  priest;  since  the  flock 
"  or  people  has  the  chief  power  of  choosing  worthy  priests  and 
"  refusing  unworthy  ones,  which  we  see  comes  down  to  us  from 
"divine  authority, that  ihepi'iest  should  be  chosen  in  the  presence 
"  of  the  flock,  and  in  the  sight  of  all,  that  he  may  be  approved  as 
"worthy  and  fit,  by  the  judgment  and  testimony  of  all.  This  is 
"  observed,  according  to  divine  authority,  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apos- 
"  ties,  when  Peter,  speaking  to  the  people  concerning  the  ordination 
"  a  bishop  in  the  place  of  Judas  ;  it  is  said  Peter  rose  up  in  the 
"  midst  of  the  disciples,  the  whole  multitude  being  met  together. 
"  And  we  may  take  notice  that  the  apostles  observed  this,  not  only 
"  in  the  ordination  of  bishops  and  priests,  but  also  of  deacons, 
"  concerning  whom  it  is  writen  in  the  Acts,  that  the  twelve  gathered 
"  together  the  whole  multitude  of  the  disciples,  and  said  unto 
u  them,  &c.  which  was,  therefore,  so  diligently  and  carefully 
16  transacted  before  all  the  people,  lest  any  unworthy  person  should, 
"  by  secret  arts,  creep  into  the  ministry  of  the  altar,  or  the  sacer- 
"  dotal  station.  This,  therefore,  is  to  be  observed  and  held  as 
"  founded  on  divine  tradition  and  apostolic  practice  ;  which  is  also 
"  kept  up  with  us,  and  almost  in  all  the  provinces,  that  in  order  to 
"  the  right  performance  of  ordination,  the  neighbouring  bishops  of 
"  the  same  province  meet  with  that  Jtocfc  to  which  the  bishop  is 
"  ordained,  and  that  the  bishop  be  chosen  in  presence  of  the  people, 
"  who  know  every  one's  life,  and  are  acquainted  with  their  whole 
"  conversation.  Which  we  see  was  done  by  you  in  the  ordination 
"  of  Sabinus,  our  colleague,  that  the  Episcopacy  was  conferred  on 
"him  by  the  suffrage  of  the  whole  brotherhood,  and  of  the  bishops 
ft  who  were  met  there,  and  wrote  to  you  concerning  him." 

Epist.  32.  "  Through  all  the  vicissitudes  of  time,  the  ordination 
"  of  bishops,  and  the  constitution  of  the  church,  are  so  handed 
"  down,  that  the  church  is  built  on  the  bishops,  and  every  act  of 
"  the  church  is  ordered  and  managed  by  them.  Seeing,  therefore, 
"  this  is  founded  on  the  law  of  God,  I  wonder  that  some  should  be 
"  so  rash  and  insolent  as  to  write  to  me  in  the  name  of  the  church^ 


TESTIMONY  OF  THE  FATHERS.  115 

et  seeing  a  church  consists  of  a  bishop,  clergy,  and  all  that  stand 
"  faithful." 

Tract.  De  Unitat.  Eccles.  "  Our  Lord  speaks  to  Peter,  I 
"  say  unto  thee,  tliou  art  Peter,  and  upon  this  rock  I  will  build  my 
"  church,  &c.  Upon  one  he  builds  his  church  ;  and  though  he 
"  gave  an  equal  power  to  all  his  apostles,  yet  that  he  might 
"  manifest  unity,  he  ordered  the  beginning  of  that  unity  to  proceed 
"from  one  person.  The  rest  of  the  apostles  were  the  same  that 
t(  Peter  was,  being  endued  with  the  same  fellowship  both  of  honour 
"  and  power.  But  the  beginning  proceeds  from  unity,  that  the 
<f  church  may  be  shown  to  be  one." 

Epist.  3.  "  The  deacons  ought  to  remember,  that  the  Lord  hath 
"  chosen  apostles,  that  is,  bishops  and  presidents  ;  but  the  apostles 
"  constituted  deacons,  as  the  ministers  of  their  Episcopacy  and  of 
"  the  church." 

These  extracts  are  remarkable.  Though  they  are  precisely 
those  which  Episcopalians  generally  adduce  from  Cyprian  in  sup- 
port of  their  cause  ;  yet  the  discerning  reader  will  perceive  that  all 
their  force  lies  against  that  cause.  It  is  evident  from  these  extracts, 
that  bishop  and  president  are  used  by  this  father  as  words  of  the 
same  import ;  that  the  officer  thus  denominated  was  the  only  one 
who  had  the  power  of  administering  baptism;  that  the  bishop  in 
Cyprian's  days  was  chosen  by  the  people  of  his  charge,  was 
ordained  over  a  particular  flock,  and  received  his  ordination  in  the 
presence  of  that  flock.  All  these  circumstances  agree  perfectly 
with  the  Presbyterian  doctrine,  that  the  bishop  is  the  pastor  of  a 
single  congregation  ;  but  wear  a  most  unnatural  and  improbable 
aspect  when  applied  to  a  diocesan  bishop,  having  a  number  of 
flocks  or  congregations  with  their  pastors,  under  his  care. 

It  is  readily  granted,  that  Cyprian  speaks  of  the  church  of 
Carthage  as  having  several  presbyters  or  elders  as  well  as  deacons, 
and  that  he  distinguishes  between  presbyters  of  that  church  and 
himself  their  bishop.  But  how  many  of  these  were  ruling  elders, 
and  how  many  were  empowered  to  teach  and  administer  sacra- 
ments, as  well  as  to  rule  j  and  in  what  respects  he  differed  from 
the  other  presbyters,  whether  only  as  a  standing  chairman  or 
president  among  them,  as  seems  to  be  intimated  by  his  calling 
them  repeatedry  his  colleagues  or  co-presbyters,  we  are  no  where 
informed.  All  we  know  is,  that  writing  to  them  in  his  exile,  he 


116  LETTER  V. 

requests  them,  during  his  absence,  to  perform  his  duties  as  well  as 
their  own  ;  which  looks  as  if  Cyprian  considered  the  presbyters 
of  his  church  as  clothed  with  full  power  to  perform  all  those  acts 
which  were  incumbent  on  him  as  bishop,  and  consequently  as  of 
the  same  order  with  himself. 

Again  ;  when  Cyprian  speaks  of  the  church  as  "  being  built  on 
the  bishops,"  and  of  all  the  acts  of  the  church  as  being  managed  by 
by  them,  Episcopalians  hastily  triumph,  as  if  this  were  decided 
testimony  in  their  favour.  But  their  triumph  is  premature.  Does 
Cyprian,  in  these  passages,  refer  to  diocesan  or  parochial  bishops  ? 
To  prelates ,  who  had  the  government  of  a  diocese,  containing  a 
number  of  congregations  and  their  ministers ;  or  to  pastors  of 
single  flocks  ?  The  latter,  from  the  whole  strain  of  his  epistles,  is 
evidently  his  meaning.  He  no  where  gives  the  least  hint  of  having 
more  than  one  congregation  under  his  own  care.  He  represents 
his  whole  church  as  ordinarily  joining  together  in  the  celebration 
of  the  eucharist.  He  declares  his  resolution  to  do  nothing  without 
the  council  of  his  elders,  and  the  consent  of  his  flock.  He  affirms 
that  every  church,  when  properly  organized,  consists  of  a  bishop, 
clergy,  and  the  brotherhood.  All  these  representations  apply 
only  to  parochial,  and  by  no  means  to  diocesan  Episcopacy.  For 
if  such  officers  belong  to  every  church,  or  organized  religious 
society,  then  we  must  conclude  that  by  the  clergy  of  each  church, 
as  distinguished  from  the  bishop,  is  meant  those  elders  who 
assisted  the  pastor  in  the  discharge  of  parochial  duty.  It  is  well 
known  that  Cyprian  applies  the  term  clergy  to  all  sorts  of  church 
officers.  In  his  epistles,  not  only  the  presbyters,  or  elders,  but 
also  the  deacons,  sub-deacons,  readers  and  acolyths  are  all  spoken 
of  as  belonging  to  the  clergy.  The  ordination  of  such  persons, 
(for  it  seems  in  his  time  they  were  all  formally  ordained)  he  calls 
ordinationes  clericce;  and  the  letters  which  he  transmitted  by 
them,  he  styles  liter  OR  clericce.  The  same  fact  may  be  clearly 
established  from  the  writings  of  Ambrose,  Hilary  and  Epiphanius, 
and  also  from  the  canons  of  the  council  of  Nice.  When  Cyprian, 
then,  speaks  of  a  church,  when  properly  organized,  as  consisting 
of  a  bishop,  clergy,  and  brotherhood,  he  not  only  speaks  a  language 
which  is  strictly  reconcilable  with  Presbyterian  church  govern- 
ment ;  but  which  can  scarcely  be  reconciled  with  any  thing  else. 
For  it  is  alone  descriptive  of  a  pastor  or  overseer  of  a  single 


TESTIMONY   OF  THE  FATHERS.  117 

church,  with  his  elders  and  deacons  to  assist  in  their  appropriate 
functions.  But  there  is  one  passage  in  the  above  cited  extracts, 
which  completely  establishes  the  position,  that  Cyprian  considered 
bishops  and  preaching  presbyters  as  of  the  same  order.  He 
recognizes  the  same  kind  of  pre-eminence  in  bishops  over  presby- 
ters, as  Peter  had  over  the  other  apostles.  But  of  what  nature 
was  this  superiority  ?  He  shall  speak  for  himself.  "  The  rest  of 
"  the  apostles,"  says  he,  "  were  the  same  that  Peter  was,  being 
"  endued  with  the  same  fellowship,  both  of  honour  and  power  ; 
"  but  the  beginning  proceeds  from  unity,  that  the  church  may  be 
"  shown  to  be  one."  In  other  words,  every  bishop  is  of  the  same 
order  with  \\iosepresbyters  who  labour  in  the  word  and  doctrine  : 
and  only  holds,  in  consequence  of  his  being  vested  with  a  pastoral 
charge,  the  distinction  of  president  or  chairman  among  them. 
That  I  do  not  mistake  Cyprian's  meaning,  you  will  readily  be 
persuaded,  when  I  inform  you  that  Mr.  Dodwell,  that  learned  and 
able  advocate  for  Episcopacy,  expressly  acknowledges,  that 
Cyprian  makes  Peter  the  type  of  every  bishop,  and  the  rest  of  the 
apostles  the  type  of  every  presbyter. 

Firmilian,  bishop  of  Cesarea,  who  was  contemporary  with 
Cyprian,  in  an  epistle  addressed  to  the  latter,  has  the  following 
passage.  .  Cyprian.  Epist.  75.  "  But  the  other  heretics  also,  if 
"  they  separate  from  the  church,  can  have  no  power  or  grace, 
"  since  all  power  and  grace  are  placed  in  the  church,  where 
"  Presbyters  preside,  in  whom  is  vested  the  power  of  baptizing 
"  and  imposition  of  hands,  and  ordination."  This  passage  needs 
no  comment.  It  not  only  represents  the  right  to  baptize  and 
the  right  to  ordain  as  going  together ;  but  it  also  expressly  ascribes 
both  to  the  elders  who  preside  in  the  churches. 

The  testimony  of  Jerome  on  this  subject  is  remarkably  explicit 
and  decisive.  This  distinguished  father,  who  flourished  about  the 
year  380,  and  who  was  acknowledged  by  the  whole  Christian 
world  to  be  one  of  the  most  pious  and  learned  men  of  his  day,* 
does  not  merely  convey  his  opinion  in  indirect  terms  and  occa- 
sional hints,  as  most  of  the  preceding  fathers  had  done,  but  in  the 


*  The  celebrated  Erasmus  declared  concerning  Jerome,  that  "he  was, 
without  controversy,  the  most  learned  of  all  Christians,  the  prince  of 
divines,  and  for  eloquence  that  he  excelled  Cicero" 


118  LETTER  V. 

most  express  and  formal  manner.  In  his  Commentary  on  Titus 
we  find  the  following  passage.  "  Let  us  diligently  attend  to  the 
"  words  of  the  apostle,  saying,  That  thou  maycst  ordain  elders 
"  in  every  city,  as  1  have  appointed  thee.  Who  discoursing  in 
"  what  follows,  what  sort  of  presbyter  is  to  be  ordained,  saith,  If 
"  any  one  be  blameless,  the  husband  of  one  wife,  &c.  afterwards 
"  adds,  For  a  bishop  must  be  blameless,  as  the  steward  of  God, 
"  &c.  A  presbyter,  therefore,  is  the  same  as  a  bishop;  and  before 
"  there  were,  by  the  devil's  instinct,  parties  in  religion,  and  it  was 
"  said  among  the  people,  I  am  of  Paul,  I  of  Apollos,  and  I  of 
"  Cephas,*  the  churches  were  governed  by  the  common  council  of 
"  presbyters.  But  afterwards,  when  every  one  thought  that  those 
"  whom  he  baptized  were  rather  his  than  Christ's,  it  was  deter- 
"  mined  through  the  whole  world,  that  one  of  the  presbyters 
"  should  be  set  above  the  rest,  to  whom  all  care  of  the  church 
"  should  belong,  that  the  seeds  of  schism  might  be  taken  away. 
"  If  any  suppose  that  it  is  merely  our  opinion,  and  not  that  of  the 
"  Scriptures,  that  bishop  and  presbyter  are  the  same,  and  that  one 
"  is  the  name  of  age,  the  other  of  office,  let  him  read  the  words  of 
"  the  apostles  to  the  Philippians,  saying,  Paul  and  Timothy,  the 

*  Some  Episcopal  writers  have  attempted,  from  this  allusion  of  Jerome 
to  1  Cor.  i.  12,  to  infer  that  he  dates  Episcopacy  as  early  as  the  dispute 
at  Corinth,  to  which  this  passage  refers.  But  this  inference  is  effectually 
refuted  by  two  considerations.  In  the  first  place  Jerome  adduces  proof 
that  bishop  and  presbyter  were  originally  the  same,  from  portions  of  the 
New  Testament  which  were  certainly  written  after  the  first  epistle  to  the 
Corinthians.  In  the  second  place,  that  language  of  the  apostle,  onesaith 
I  am  of  Paul,  and  another,  I  am  of  .^polios,  &c,  has  been  familiarly 
applied  in  every  age,  by  way  of  allusion,  to  actual  divisions  in  the  church. 
And  were  those  who  put  the  construction  on  Jerome  which  I  am  oppos- 
ing, a  little  better  acquainted  with  his  writings,  they  would  know  that 
in  another  place  he  himself  applies  the  same  passage  to  some  disturbers 
of  the  church's  peace  in  the  fourth  century.  Suppose  any  one  were 
describing  a  division  in  a  church  in  the  nineteenth  century,  and  were 
to  say,  as  has  been  said  a  thousand  times  since  the  days  of  Paul,  "  They 
arc  all  at  strife,  one  saying,  *  I  am  of  Paul,  and  another  I  am  of 
Jlpollos,  &c.'  "  how  would  he  be  understood  ?  as  referring  to  that  Scrip- 
ture by  way  of  allusion,  or  as  meaning  to  say  that  the  division  which  he 
described,  took  place  in  the  days  of.  Paul? 


TESTIMONY  OF  THE  FATHERS.  119 

«*  the  servants  of  Jesus  Christ,  to  all  the  saints  in  Christ  Jesus 
"  that  are  at  Philippi,  with  the  bishops  and  deacons.  PhiHppi  is 
"  a  city  of  Macedonia,  and  certainly,  in  one  city  there  could  not 
«  be  more  than  one  bishop,  as  they  are  now  styled.  But  at  that 
"  time  they  called  the  same  men  bishops  whom  they  called  presby- 
"  ters  ;  therefore,  he  speaks  indifferently  of  bishops  as  of  presby- 
"  ters.  This  may  seem  even  yet,  doubtful  to  some,  till  it  be  proved 
"  by  another  testimony.  It  is  written  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles, 
"  that  when  the  apostle  came,  to  Miletus  he  sent  to  Ephesus,  and 
"  and  called  the  presbyters  of  that  church,  to  whom,  among  other 
"  things,  he  said,  Take  heed  to  yourselves,  and  to  all  the  flock  over 
"  whom  the  Holy  Ghost  hath  made  you  bishops,  to  feed  the  church 
"  of  God  which  he  hath  purchased  w}th  his  own  blood.  Here 
"  observe  diligently,  that  calling  together  the  presbyters  of  one 
"  city,  Ephesus,  he  afterwards  styles  the  same  persons  bishops. 
"  If  any  will  receive  that  epistle  which  is  written  in  the  name  of 
"  Paul  to  the  Hebrews,  there  also  the  care  of  the  church  is  equally 
"  divided  among  many,  since  he  writes  to  the  people,  Obey  them 
"  that  have  the  rule  over  you,  and  submit  yourselves,  for  they 
"  watch  for  your  souls  as  those  that  must  give  an  account,  that 
u  they  may  do  it  with  joy  and  not  with  grief,  for  that  is 
((  unprofitable  for  you.  And  Peter  (so  called  from  the  firmness 
"  of  his  faith)  in  his  epistle,  saith,  The  presbyters  which  are  among 
61  you  I  exhort,  whom  am  also  a  presbyter,  and  a  witness  of  the 
"  sufferings  of  Chi  ist,  and  also  a  partaker  of  the  glory  that  shall 
"  be  revealed.  Feed  the  flock  of  God  which  is  among  you,  not 
"  by  constraint  but  willingly.  These  things  I  have  written  to  show, 
"  that  among  the  ancients, presbyters  and  bishops  were  the  same. 
"  But,  by  little  and  little,  that  all  the  seeds  of  dissension  might 
"  be  plucked  up,  the  whole  care  was  devolved  on  one.  As,  there- 
fore, the  presbyters  know,  that  by  the  custom  of  the  church  they 
"  are  subject  to  him  who  is  their  president,  so  let  bishops,  know, 
li  that  they  are  above  presbyters  more  by  the  custom  of  the  church 
"  than  by  the  true  dispensation  of  Christ ;  and  that  they  ought  to 
"  rule  the  church  in  common,  imitating  Moses,  who,  when  he 
"  might  alone  rule  the  people  of  Israel,  chose  seventy  with  whom 
"  he  might  judge  the  people." 

In  Jerome's  epistle  to  Evagrius,  he  speaks  on  the  same  subject 


120  LETTER  V. 

in  the  following  pointed  language.*  "  I  hear  that  a  certain  person 
«  has  broken  out  into  such  folly  that  he  prefers  deacons  before 
'« presbyters,  that  is  before  bishops :  for  when  the  apostle  clearly 
(t  teaches  that  presbyters  and  bishops  were  the  same,  who  can 
{t  endure  it,  that  a  minister  of  tables  and  of  widows  should 
<*  proudly  exalt  himself  above  those  at  whose  prayers  the  body 
"  and  blood  of  Christ  is  made  ?  Do  you  seek  for  authority  ?  hear 
"  that  testimony  :  Paul  and  Timothy,  servants  of  Jesus  Christ,  to 
"  all  the  saintsin  Christ  Jesus  that  are  at  Philippi,with  the  bishops 
"  and  deacons.  Would  you  have  another  example?  In  the  Acts  of 
"  the  Apostles,  Paul  speaks  thus  to  the  priests  of  one  church — 
li  Take  heed  to  yourselves  and  to  all  the  flock  over  which  the  Holy 
t(  Ghost  hath  made  you  bishops,  that  you  govern  the  church  which 
t(  he  hath  purchased  with  his  own  blood.  And  lest  any  should 
"  contend  about  there  being  a  plurality  of  bishops  in  one  church, 
"  hear  also  another  testimony,  by  which  it  may  most  manifestly  be 
"  proved,  that  a  bishop  and  presbyter  are  the  same — For  this  cause 
"  left  I  thee  in  Crete,  that  thou  shouldest  set  in  order  the  things 
"  that  are  wanting,  and  ordain  presbyters  in  every  city,  as  I  have 
"  appointed  thee.  If  any  be  blameless,  the  husband  of  one  wife, 
"  fyc.  For  a  bishop  must  be  blameless,  as  the  steward  of  God.  And  to 
"  Timothy — Neglect  not  the  gift  that  is  in  thee,  which  was  given 
"  thee  by  prophecy,  by  the  laying  on  of  the  hands  of  the  presby- 
li  tery.  And  Peter  also,  in  his  first  epistle,  saith,  the  presbyters 

*  Among  the  numerous  expedients  to  get  rid  of  this  decisive  testimony 
of  Jerome,  one  is,  to  represent  that  the  epistle  to  Evagrius  was  written 
in  &fit  of  passion,  in  which  the  worthy  father  had  particular  inducements 
to  magnify  the  office  of  presbyter  as  much  as  possible.  To  suppose  that 
a  man  of  Jerome's  learning  and  piety,  even  in  a  fit  of  anger,  would  delibe- 
rately commit  to  writing  a  doctrine  directly  opposite  to  "  the  faith  of  the 
universal  church  from  the  beginning,"  and  that  too  on  a  point  of  funda- 
mental importance  to  the  very  existence  of  the  Redeemer's  kingdom  on 
earth;  that  he  should  so  earnestly  insist  upon  it,  and  make  such  formal  and 
solemn  appeals  to  Scripture  in  support  of  it,  is  a  supposition  which  can 
only  be  made  by  those  who  are  driven  to  the  utmost  extremity  for  a  sub- 
terfuge. But  how  shall  we  account  for  Jerome's  having  maintained  the 
same  doctrine,  illustrated  by  the  same  reasonings,  and  fortified  by  the  same 
Scriptural  quotations,  in  his  commentary  on  Titus,  before  quoted,  which 
must  be  supposed  to  have  been  written  with  much  reflection  and  serious- 
ness, and  which  was  solemnly  delivered  as  a  legacy  to  the  church,  by 
one  of  her  most  illustrious  ministers!1 


TESTIMONY   OF  THE  FATHERS.  121 

"  which  are  among  you  I  exhort,-  who  am  also  a  presbyter,  and  a 
"  witness  of  the  sufferings  of  Christ,  and  also  a  partaker  of  the 
"  glory  that  shall  be  revealed;  to  rule  the  flock  of  Christ,  and  to 
"  inspect  it,  not  of  constraint,  but  willingly  according  to  God  ? 
"  which  is  more  significantly  expressed  in  the  Greek  E^jtfxoTrouvrs^ 
"  that  is,  superintending  it,  whence  the  name  of  bishop  is  drawn- 
"  Do  the  testimonies  of  such  men  seem  small  to  thee  ?  Let  the 
"  evangelical  trumpet  sound,  the  son  of  thunder,  whom  Jesus  loved 
"  much,  who  drank  the  streams  of  doctrine  from  our  Saviour's 
«  breast.  The  presbyter  to  the  elect  lady  and  her  children,  whom 
"  1  love  in  the  truth.  And  in  another  epistle,  the  presbyter  to  the 
(l  beloved  Gains,  whom  I  love  in  the  truth.  But  that  one  was  after- 
v.  wards  chosen,  who  should  be  set  above  the  rest,  was  done  as  a 
"  remedy  against  schism  ;  lest  every  one  drawing  the  Church  of 
"  Christ  to  himself,  should  break  it  in  pieces.  For  at  Alexandria, 
"  from  Mark,  the  Evangelist,  to  Heraclas  and  Dionysius,  the 
"  bishops  thereof,  the  presbyters  always  named  one,  chosen  from 
"  among  them,  and  placed  in  an  higher  degree,  bishop.  As  if  an 
"  army  should  make  an  emperor ;  or  the  deacons  should  choose 
"  one  of  themselves  whom  they  knew  to  be  most  diligent,  and  call 
"  him  arch-deacon.7'  And  a  little  afterwards,  in  the  same  epistle, 
"  he  says,  "  Presbyter  and  bishop,  the  one  is  the  name  of  age,  the 
"  other  of  dignity  :  WKence  in  the  epistles  to  Timothy  and  Titus, 
"  there  is  mention  made  of  the  ordination  of  bishop  and  deacon, 
"  but  not  of  presbyters  ,  because  the  presbyter  is  included  in  the 
"bisJiop." 

After  perusing  this  most  explicit  and  unequivocal  testimony  5  a 
testimony  which  one  would  imagine  could  scarcely  have  been  more 
formal  or  more  decisive  5  you  will  be  surprised  to  learn  that  some 
Episcopal  writers  have  ventured  to  say,  that  Jerome  merely  offers 
a  conjecture,  that  in  the  apostle's  days,  bishop  and  presbyter  were 
the  same.  If  the  extracts  abovestated  be  the  language  of  conjecture 
I  should  be  utterly  at  a  loss  to  know  what  is  the  language  of 
assertion  and  proof.  In  what  manner  could  he  have  spoken  more 
clearly  or  more  positively  ?  But  I  will  not  insult  your  understand- 
ings by  pursuing  the  refutation  of  this  pretence.  From  the 
foregoing  extracts,  it  is  abundantly  apparent : 

I.  That  the  interpretation  given,  in  my  second  letter,  of  those 
passages  of  Scripture  which  represent  bishops  and  presbyters  as 
Q 


122  LETTER  V. 

the  same,  in  office  and  power,  as  well  as  in  title,  is  by  no  means  a 
novel  interpretation,  invented  to  serve  the  purposes  of  a  party,  as 
Episcopalians  have  frequently  asserted ;  but  an  interpretation 
more  than  1400  years  old ;  and  represented  as  the  general  sense 
of  the  apostolic  age,  by  one  who  had  as  good  an  opportunity  of 
becoming  acquainted  with  early  opinions  on  this  subject  as  any 
man  then  living. 

2.  That  a  departure  from  the  primitive  model  of  church  govern- 
ment had  taken   place  in   Jerome's   day ;     that   this    departure 
consisted  in  making  a  distinction  of  order  between  bishops  and 
presbyters  ;  and  lhat  this  distinction   was  neither  warranted  by 
scripture,  nor  conformable  to  the  apostolic  model ;  but  owed  its 
origin  to  the  decay  of  religion,  and  especially  to  the  ambition  of 
ministers.     It  commenced  "  when  every  one  began  to  think  that 
"  those  whom  he  baptized  were  rather  his  than  Christ's." 

3.  It  is  expressly  asserted  by  Jerome,  that  this  change  in  the 
constitution  of  the  Christian  ministry  came  in  (paulatwij  by  little 
and  little.     He  says,  indeed,  in  one  of  the  passages  above  quoted, 
that  it  was  agreed  "  all  over  the  world,"  as  a  remedy  against  schism* 
to  choose  one  of  the  presbyters,  and  make    him    president   or 
moderator  of  the  body  ;  and  some  commentators  on  this  passage 
have  represented  it  as  saying  that  the  change  was  made  all  at  once. 
Fortunately,  however,  we  have  Jerome's  express  declaration  in 
another  place,  that  the  practice  came  in  gradually.     But  whether 
half  a  century  or  two  centuries  elapsed  before  the  "  whole  world" 
came  to  an  agreement  on  this  subject,  he  does  not  say. 

4.  Jerome  further  informs  us,  that  the   first  pre-eminence   of 
bishops  was  only  such  as  the  body  of  the  presbyters  were  able  to 
confer.     They  were  only  standing  presidents  or  moderators  ;  and 
all  the  ordination  they  received,  on  being  thus  chosen,  was  per- 
formed by  the  presbyters  themselves.*     This  he  tells  us  was  the 

*  To  this  some  Episcopal  writers  reply,  that  Jerome  does  not  expressly 
assert  that  the  presbyters  ordained  the  bishop,  but  only  that  they  chose 
him,  placed  him  in  a  higher  seat,  and  called  him  bishop.  And  hence  they 
take  the  liberty  of  inferring  that  the  election  was  by  the  presbyters,  but 
the  ordination  by  other  diocesan  bishops.  To  suppose  this,  is  to  make 
Jerome  reason  most  inconclusively,  and  adduce  an  instance  which  was 
not  only  nothing  to  the  purpose,  but  directly  hostile  to  his  whole 
argument.  If  the  presbyters  did  not  do  all  that  was  done,  the  case  had 


TESTIMONY  OF  THE  FATHERS.  123 

only  Episcopacy  that  existed  in  the  church  of  Alexandria,  one  of 
most  conspicuous  then  in  the  world,  until  after  the  middle  of  the 
third  century. 

5.  It  is  finally  manifest,  from  these  quotations,  that  while  Jerome 
maintains  (he  parity  of  all  ministers  of  the  Gospel  in  the  primitive 
church,  he  entirely  excludes  deacons  from  being  an  order  of  clergy 
at  all.  "  Who  can  endure  it,  that  a  minister  of  tables  and  of 
t(  widows  should  proudly  exalt  himself  above  those  at  whose  prayers 
"  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ  is  made  ?" 

Some  zealous  Episcopal  writers  have  endeavoured  to  destroy 
the  force  of  these  express  declarations  of  Jerome,  by  quoting  other 
passages,  in  which  he  speaks  of  bishops  and  presbyters  in  the 
current  language  of  his  time.  For  instance,  in  one  place,  speaking 
of  that  pre-eminence  which  bishops  had  then  attained,  he  asks, 
"  What  can  a  bishop  do  that  a  presbyter  may  not  also  do,  except- 
"  ing  ordination  ?''  But  it  is  evident  that  Jerome,  in  this  passage, 
refers,  not  to  the  primitive  right  of  bishops,  but  to  prerogative 
which  they  had  gradually  acquired,  and  which  generally  yielded  to 
them  in  his  day.  His  position  is,  that  even  then  there  was  no 
right  which  they  arrogated  to  themselves  above  presbyters, 
excepting  that  of  ordination.  In  like  manner,  in  another  place,  he 
makes  a  kind  of  loose  comparison  between  the  officers  of  the 
Christian  Church,  and  the  Jewish  Priesthood.  These  passages, 
however,  and  others  of  a  similar  kind,  furnish  nothing  in  support 
of  the  Episcopal  cause.*  Jerome,  when  writing  on  ordinary 
occasions,  spoke  of  Episcopacy  as  it  then  stood.  But  when  he 
undertook  explicitly  to  deliver  an  opinion  respecting  primitive 
Episcopacy,  he  expressed  himself  in  the  words  we  have  seen; 

nothing  to  do  with  his  reasoning1.  Besides,  Eutychius  the  patriarch  of 
Alexandria,  in  his  Origines  Ecdesiae  Jllexandrinse,  published  by  the 
learned  Selden,  expressly  declares,  "  that  the  twelve  presbyters  consti- 
«'  tuted  by  Mark,  upon  the  vacancy  of  the  see,  did  choose  out  of  their 
"  number  one  to  be  head  over  the  rest,  and  the  other  eleven  did  lay  their 
"  hands  upon  him,  and  blessed  him,  and  made  him  Patriarch." 

*  Accordingly  bishop  Stillingfleet  declares,  "  Among  all  the  fifteen 
"testimonies  produced  by  a  learned  writer  out  of  Jerome,  for  the  supe- 
riority of  bishops  above  presbyters,  I  cannot  find  me  that  does  found 
"  it  upon  divine  right  ,•  but  only  on  the  convenience  of  such  an  order 
"  for  the  peace  and  unity  of  the  church."  Irenicum.  Part  If.  chapter  6th. 


124  LETTER  V. 

words  as  absolutely  decisive  as  any  friend  of  Presbyterian  parity 
could  wish.  To  attempt  to  set  vague  allusions,  and  phrases  of 
dubious  import,  in  opposition  to  such  express  and  unequivocal 
passages ;  passages  in  which  the  writer  professedly  and  formally 
lays  down  a  doctrine,  reasons  at  great  length  in  its  support,  and 
deliberately  deduces  his  conclusion,  is  as  absurd  as  it  is  uncandid. 
Jerome,  therefore,  notwithstanding  all  the  arts  which  have  been 
employed  to  set  aside  his  testimony,  remains  a  firm  and  decisive 
witness  in  support  of  our  principle,  that  the  doctrine  of  ministerial 
parity  was  the  doctrine  of  the  primitive  church.  Accordingly 
bishop  Jewel,  professor  jRaignolds,  bishop  Stillingjleet,  and  other 
learned  divines  of  the  church  of  England,  as  I  shall  afterwards  show, 
interpret  this  father,  on  the  subject  of  Episcopacy,  precisely  as  I 
have  done,  and  consider  him  as  expressly  declaring  that  bishop  and 
presbyter  were  the  same  in  the  apostolic  age. 

But  what  strongly  confirms  our  interpretation  of  Jerome  is,  that 
several  fathers  contemporary,  or  nearly  so,  with  him,  when  called 
to  speak  specifically  on  the  same  subject,  make,  in  substance,  the 
same  statement.  In  other  parts  of  their  writings,  they  speak,  as 
Jerome  did,  in  the  current  language  of  their  time :  But  when  they 
had  occasion  to  express  a  precise  opinion  on  the  point  now  under 
consideration,  they  do  it  in  a  way  not  to  be  mistaken.  Two  or 
three  examples  of  this  will  be  sufficient. 

Augustine,  bishop  of  Hippo,  in  writing  to  Jerome,  who  was  a 
presbyter,  expresses  himself  thus  :  "  I  entreat  you  to  correct  me 
"  faithfully  when  you  see  I  need  it ;  for  although,  according  to  the 
"  names  of  honour  which  the  custom  of  the  church  has  NOW  brought 
"  into  use,  the  office  of  bishop  is  greater  than  that  of  presbyter, 
"  nevertheless,  in  many  respects,  Augustine  is  inferior  to  Jerome." 
Epist.  19.  ad  hierom.  It  is  worthy  of  notice  that  bishop  Jewel 
in  the  "  Defence  of  his  Apology  for  the  Church  of  England,9'  pro- 
duces this  passage  for  the  express  purpose  of  showing  the  original 
identity  of  bishop  and  presbyter,  and  translates  it  thus :  "  The 
"  office  of  bishop  is  above  the  office  of  priest,  not  by  authority  of 
"  the  scriptures,  but  after  the  names  of  honour  which  the  custom 
"  of  the  church  hath  now  obtained.7'  Defence,  122,  123. 

If  there  is  meaning  in  words,  Augustine  represents  the  superio- 
rity of  bishops  to  presbyters  as  introduced  by  the  custom  of  the 
church,  rather  than  divine  appointment. 


TESTIMONY  OF  THE   FATHERS.  125 

Hilary,  (sometimes  called  Ambrose]  who  wrote  about  the  year 
376,  in  his  Commentary  on  Ephesians  iv.  2.  has  the  following 
passage.  "  After  that  churches  were  planted  ^n  all  places,  and 
"  officers  ordained,  matters  were  settled  otherwise  than  they  were 
"  in  the  beginning.  And  hence  it  is,  that  the  apostles'  writings 
"  do  not  in  all  things  agree  to  the  present  constitution  of  the 
"  church :  because  they  were  written  under  the  first  rise  of  the 
i:  church ;  for  he  calls  Timothy,  who  was  created  ^presbyter  by  him, 
"  a  bishop,  for  so  at  first  the  presbyters  were  called  ;  among  whom 
"  this  was  the  course  of  governing  churches,  that  as  one  withdrew 
"another  took  his  place;  and  in  Egypt,  even  at  this  day,  the 
"  presbyters  ordain  (or  consecrate,  consignant)  in  the  bishop's 
"  absence.  But  because  the  following  presbyters  began  to  be  found 
"  unworthy  to  hold  the  first  place,  the  method  was  changed,  the 
"  council  providing  that  not  order,  but  merit,  should  create  a 
"  bishop." 

In  this  passage,  we  have  not  only  an  express  declaration  that 
the  Christian  church,  in  the  days  of  Hilary,  had  deviated  from  its 
primitive  pattern  ;  but  also  that  this  deviation  had  a  particular 
respect  to  the  name  and  office  of  bishop,  which,  in  the  beginning, 
was  the  same  with  presbyter.  He  also  declares,  that,  notwith- 
standing this  change,  presbtyers,  even  then,  sometimes  ordained  ; 
and  that  the  reason  of  their  not  continuing  to  exercise  this  power 
was,  that  an  ecclesiastical  arrangement,  subsequent  to  the 
apostolical  age,  alone  prevented  it. 

The  testimony  of  Chrysostom,  who  wrote  about  the  year  398, 
is  also  in  our  favour.  "  The  apostles,"  says  he,  "  having  dis- 
"  coursed  concerning  the  bishops,  and  described  them,  declaring 
"  what  they  ought  to  be,  and  from  what  they  ought  to  abstain, 
"  omitting  the  order  of  presbyters,  descends  to  the  deacons  ;  and 
"  why  so,  but  because  between  bishop  and  presbyter  there  is 
"scarcely  any  difference;  and  to  them  is  committed  both  the 
"  instructions  and  the  presidency  of  the  church  ;  and  whatever  he 
"  said  of  bishops  agrees  also  to  presbyters.  'In  ordination  alone 
"  they  have  gone  beyond  the  presbyters,  and  of  this  they  seem  to 
"  have  defrauded  them."*  I  Epist.  ad  Tim.  Horn.  11. 

*  This  perfectly  agrees  with  the  representation  of  Jerome,  (with  whom 
Chrysostom  was  nearly  contemporary)  who  says  that  the  only  right  which 
bishops  had  gained  over  presbyters,  in  his  day,  was  that  of  ordination. 


126  LETTER  V. 

Theodoret,  who  flourished  about  the  year  430,  in  his  commen- 
tary on  1  Tim.  iii.  makes  the  following  declaration  :  "  The  apostles 
"call  a  presbyter  a  bishop,  as  we  showed  when  we  expounded  the 
epistle  to  the  Philippians,  and  which  may  be  also  learned  from 
"  this  place,  for  after  the  precepts  proper  to  bishops,  he  describes 
"  the  things  which  belong  to  deacons.  But,  as  I  said,  of  old  they 
"  called  the  same  men  both  bishops,  and  presbyters." 

Primasius,  who  was  contemporary  with  Theodoret,  and  is  said 
to  have  been  Augustine's  disciple,  in  explaining  1  Tim.  iii.  asks, 
"  Why  the  apostle  leaps  from  the  duties  of  bishops  to  the  duties  of 
"deacons,  without  any  mention  of  presbyters?"  and  answers, 
"  because  bishops  and  presbyters  are  the  same  degree.7' 

Sedulius  also,  who  wrote  about  the  year  470,  in  his  commen- 
tary on  Titus  i.  expressly  asserts  the  identity  of  bishop  and 
presbyter.  He  declares,  not  only  that  the  titles  are  interchangeably 
applied  to  the  same  men,  but  also  that  the  office  is  the  same  ;  many 
of  them  being  found  in  the  primitive  church,  in  one  city,  which 
could  not  be  true  of  diocesan  bishops.  In  proof  of  this,  he  adduces 
the  case  of  the  elders  of  Ephesus,  Acts  xx.  who  all  dwelt  in  one 
city,  and  who,  though  called  elders  or  presbyters  in  the  17th  verse 
of  that  chapter,  are  yet,  in  the  28th  verse,  called  bishops. 

And,  finally,  Aerius,  a  presbyter  of  Sebastia,  and  contemporary 
with  Jerome,  maintained  the  same  doctrine  with  that  father,  on  the 
subject  before  us.  He  not  only  opposed  prayers  for  the  dead,  the 
superstitious  observance  of  fasts  and  festivals,  and  other  uncom- 
manded  rites;  but  he  insisted,  with  zeal,  that  bishop  and  presbyter 
were  the  same  in  the  apostolic  church,  and  that  there  ought  to  be 
no  distinction  of  orders  in  the  holy  ministry. 

We  are  told  indeed  by  the  friends  of  prelacy,  that  Aerius,  was 
reputed  an  heretic  for  holding  that  there  was  no  difference  between 
bishops  and  presbyters.  And  as  an  authority  on  this  subject,  they 
refer  us  to  Epiphanius,  who,  towards  the  close  of  the  fourth  centu- 
ry, undertook  to  give  a  list  of  heresies,  and  included  Aerius  in  the 
number.  But  when  this  alleged  fact  is  impartially  examined,  it 
will  be  found  to  weigh  nothing  in  this  controversy.  For,  in  the 
Jirst  place,  Epiphanius  is  a  writer  of  no  credit.  The  learned 
Mosheim  speaks  of  him  in  the  following  terms.  "  His  book  against 
"  all  the  heresies  which  had  sprung  up  in  the  church  until  his  time, 
"  has  little  or  no  reputation  ;  as  it  is  full  of  inaccuracies  and  errors, 


TESTIMONY  OF  THE  FATHERS.  127 

"  and  discovers  almost  in  every  page  the  levity  and  ignorance  of 
"  its  author."  But,  secondly,  by  comparing  the  whole  testimony 
of  antiquity  on  this  subject,  it  appears  that  Aerius  was  condemned 
not  so  much  for  maintaining  that  bishop  and  presbyter  were  the 
same  by  the  word  of  God,  as  for  insisting  that  there  ought  not  to  be 
any  difference  made  between  them  ;  in  asserting  which,  he  opposed 
that  pre-eminence  which  the  bishops  had  gradually  gained,  and 
set  himself  against  the  actual  constitution  of  most  of  the  churches 
in  his  day.  For  this  he  was  hated  and  reviled  by  the  friends  of 
high-church  doctrines,  and  stigmatized  as  a  heretic  and  schismatic.* 
This  appears  to  have  been  the  true  reason  why  Aerius  rendered 
himself  so  obnoxious,and  was  condemned  by  so  many  ;  while  Jerome 
and  Augustin,  unquestionably  the  most  learned  divines  of  the  age, 
though  they  held  and  avowed  substantially  the  same  doctrine,  yet 
escaped  similar  treatment,  by  tolerating,  and  even  approving  the 
moderate  prelacy  which  was  established  in  their  time,  not  as  a 
divine  appointment,  but  as  a  system  founded  on  human  prudence. 
Accordingly  Bishop  Stittingfeet  observes,  "  I  believe,  upon  the 
"  strictest  inquiry,  Medina's  judgment  will  prove  true,  that  Jerome, 
"  Augustin,  Ambrose,  Chrysostom,  Theodoret,  and  Theophylact 
"  were  all  of  Aerius  his  judgment,  as  to  the  identity  of»both  the 
"  name  and  the  order  of  bishops  and  presbyters  in  the  primitive 
"  church.  But  here  lay  the  difference  :  Aerius  proceeded  from 
"  hence  to  separate  from  bishops  and  their  churches,  because  they 
"  were  bishops.  Whereas  Jerome,  while  he  held  the  same  doctrine 
"  did  not  think  it  necessary  to  cause  a  schism  in  the  church  by 
"  separating  from  the  bishops,  for  his  opinion  is  clear,  that  the 
"  first  institution  of  them  was  for  preventing  schism,  and  therefore 
"  for  peace  and  unity  he  thought  their  institution  very  useful  in  the 

*  The  following  passage  from  Dr.  Sawies's  (an  Episcopal  clergyman) 
Ecclesiastical  History,  i.  p.  340,  is  worthy  of  notice.  "  Jlerius  made  a 
"  fiercer  resistance,  and  maintained  more  offensive  doctrines ;  that  bishops 
"  and  presbyters  in  the  Scripture  are  the  same  persons,  and  only  different 
"  descriptions  of  age  and  office  ;  that  prayers  for  the  dead  were  futile, 
«'  and  hopes  from  their  intercession  vain  ;  that  stated  fasts  and  festivals 
"  had  no  prescription  in  the  New  Testament.  These,  with  similar  asser- 
"  tions,  roused  a  host  of  enemies,  and  he  was  quickly  silenced.  So  super- 
"  stition  stalked  triumphant,  and  no  man  dared  open  his  mouth  against 
«'  any  abuses." 


128  LETTER  V. 

"  church  of  God."  Irenicum.  To  the  judgment  of  Stillingfleet 
may  be  added  that  of  Professor  Raignolds,  Bishop  Morton,  and 
and  other  eminent  Episcopal  writers,  who  frankly  acknowledge 
that  Aerius  coincided  in  opinion  on  this  subject  with  Jerome,  and 
other  distinguished  fathers,  who  undeniably  taught  the  same  doc- 
trine, without  being  stigmatized  as  heretics. 

Another  witness  on  whose  testimony  much  stress  is  laid  by 
Episcopalians,  is  Eusebius.  They  tell  us  thaf  this  historian,  who 
lived  early  in  the  fourth  century,  frequently  speaks  of  bishops  as 
superior  to  common  presbyters ;  that  he  gives  catalogues  of  the 
bishops  who  presided  over  several  of  the  most  eminent  churches  ; 
that  he  mentions  their  names  in  the  order  of  succession,  from  the 
apostolic  age  down  to  his  own  time  ;  and  that  all  succeeding  eccle- 
siastical writers  speak  the  same  language.  But  what  does  all  this 
prove?  Nothing  more  than  we  have  before  granted.  No  one  dis- 
putes that  before  the  time  of  Constantine,  in  whose  reign  Eusebius 
lived,  a  kind  of  prelacy  prevailed,  which  was  more  fully  organized 
and  established  by  that  emperor.  But  does  Eusebius  inform  us 
what  kind  of  difference  there  was  between  the  bishops  and  pres- 
byters of  his  day  ?  Does  he  say  that  the  former  were  a  different 
order  from  the  latter  ?  Does  he  declare  that  there  was  a  superior- 
ity of  order  vested  in  bishops  by  divine  appointment  ?  Does  he 
assert  that  bishops  in  the  days  of  the  Apostles,  and  for  a  century 
afterwards,  were  the  same  kind  of  officers  with  those  who  were 
called  by  the  same  title  in  the  fourth  century  ?  Does  he  tell  us  that 
this  superior  order  of  clergy  were  the  only  ecclesiastical  officers 
who  were  allowed,  in  his  day,  to  ordain  and  confirm  ?  I  have 
never  met  with  a  syllable  of  all  this  in  Eusebius.  All  that  can  be 
gathered  from  him  is,  that  there  were  persons  called  bishops  in  the 
days  of  the  apostles  ;  that  there  had  been  a  succession  of  bishops 
in  the  church  from  the  apostles  to  the  fourth  century,  when  he 
lived  ;  and  that  in  his  day,  there  was  a  distinction  between  bishops 
and  other  presbyters.  But  does  any  one  deny  this  ?  To  assert 
that,  because  Eusebius  speaks  of  particular  persons  in  the  first  and 
second  centuries  as  bishops  of  particular  churches ;  therefore  they 
were  so  in  the  prelatical  sense  of  the  word,  is  really  playing  on  the 
credulity  of  unwary  readers  ;  since  Episcopalians  themselves  grant 
that  the  term  bishop  was  applied,  in  the  apostolic  age,  and  for  some 
time  afterwards,  differently  from  what  it  was  in  the  age  of  Eusebius 


TESTIMONY  OF  THE  FATHERS.  129 

We  agree  that  there  were  bishops  in  the  first  century,  and  have  prov- 
ed from  Scripture  and  the  early  fathers,  that  this  title  was  then  ap- 
plied to  the  ordinary  pastors  of  single  congregations.  We  agree,  also, 
that  there  was  a  succession  of  bishops  in  the  second  and  third  centu- 
ries. And  finally,  we  agree  that  in  the  time  of  Constantine,  prelacy 
was  established  in  the  church.  All  this  is  perfectly  consistent  with 
our  doctrine,  viz.  that  diocesan  episcopacy,  or  bishops,  as  an  order 
superior  to  presbyters,  were  unknown  in  the  primitive  church.  I 
have  never  heard  of  a  sentence  in  Eusebius  that  touches  this  point  • 
and  f  need  not  repeat  that  it  is  the  grand  point  in  dispute.  On  the 
other  hand,  we  have  seen  that  Jerome,  who  lived  and  wrote  a  little 
after  Eusebius,  not  only  touches  this  point,  but  formally  discusses 
it,  and  unequivocally  decides,  that  the  bishops  of  Ephesus,  Philippi, 
and  'Crete,  in  the  days  of  Paul,  were  a  very  different  kind  of  church 
officers  from  those  bishops  who  lived  in  the  fourth  century. 

But  this  is  not  all.  When  Eusebius  gives  us  formal  catalogues 
of  bishops  in  succession,  from  the  apostles'  time  until  his  own,  he 
himself  warns  us  against  laying  too  much  stress  on  his  informa- 
tion ;  frankly  confessing,  u  that  he  was  obliged  to  rely  much  on 
"  tradition,  and  that  he  could  trace  no  footsteps  of  other  historians 
"  going  before  him  only  in  a  few  narratives."  This  confession 
of  Eusebius,  I  shall  present  in  the  words  of  the  great  Milton. 
"  Eusebius,  theancientest  writer  of  church  history  extant,  confesses 
"  in  the  4th  chapter  of  his  3d  book,  that  it  was  no  easy  matter 
"  to  tell  who  were  those  that  were  left  bishops  of  the  churches  by 
"  the  apostles,  more  than  what  a  man  might  gather  from  the  Acts 
"  of  the  Apostles,  and  the  Epistles  of  St.  Paul,  in  which  number  he 
"  reckons  Timothy  for  bishop  of  Ephesus.  So  as  may  plainly 
"  appear,  that  this  tradition  of  bishopping  Timothy  over  Ephesus, 
"  was  but  taken  for  granted  out  of  that  place  in  St.  Paul,  which 
"  was  only  an  entreating  him  to  tarry  at  Ephesus,  to  do  something 
"  left  him  in  charge.  Now  if  Eusebius,  a  famous  writer,  thought 
"  it  so  difficult  to  tell  who  were  appointed  bishops  by  the  apostles, 
"  much  more  may  we  think  it  difficult  to  Leontius,  an  obscure 
"  bishop,  speaking  beyond  his  own  diocese ;  and  certainly  much 
"  more  hard  was  it  for  either  of  them  to  determine  what  kind  of 
"  bishops  these  were,  if  they  had  so  little  means  to  know  who  they 
"  were  ;  and  much  less  reason  have  we  to  stand  to  their  definitive 
"  sentence,  seeing  they  have  been  so  rash  as  to  raise  up  such  lofty 
R 


130  LETTER  V. 

"  bishops  and  bishopricks,  out  of  places  of  scripture  merely 
"  misunderstood.  Thus  while  we  leave  the  Bible  to  gad  after  these 
"traditons  of  the  ancients,  we  hear  the  ancients  themselves 
"  confessing,  that  what  knowledge  they  had  in  this  point  was  such 
"  as  they  had  gathered  from  the  Bible."  Milton  against  Prelatical 
"Episcopacy,  p.  3. 

Besides  the  quotations  above  presented,  which  abundantly  prove 
that  the  primitive  bishop  was  the  pastor  of  a  single  congregation, 
there  are  some  facts,  incidentally  stated,  by  early  writers,  which 
serve  remarkably  to  confirm  the  same  truth. 

Thejirsl  fact  is,  the  great  number  of  bishops  which  ecclesiastical 
historians  inform  us,  were  found  in  early  periods  of  the  church, 
within  small  districts  of  country.     Eusebius  tells  us,  that  about  the 
year  260,  when   Gallienus  was  emperor,  Paul,  bishop  of  Antioch, 
began  to  oppose  the  doctrine  of  the  divinity  of  Christ.     A  council 
was  immediately  called  at  Antioch,  to  consider  and  judge  of  Paul's 
heresy.     Dionysius,  bishop  of  the  church  of  Alexandria,    was 
invited,  but  did  not  attend  ;  and  the  historian,  after  mentioning  six 
conspicuous  names,  adds,  "  It  would  be  nowise  difficult  to  enume- 
"  rate  six  hundred  other  bishops,  who  all  flowed  together  to  that 
"  place."     At  a  conference  which  Augustin,  and  the  bishops  of 
his  province,  in  Africa,  had  with  the  Donatists,  about  the  year 
410,  there  were  present  between  Jive  and  six  hundred  bishops. 
Victor  Uticensis  in  his  work  De  Persecution  Vandalica,  informs 
us,  that  from  the  part  of  Africa  in  which  this  persecution  took 
place,  six  hundred  and  sixty  bishops  fled,  besides  the  great  number 
that  were  murdered  and  imprisoned,  and  many  more  who  were 
tolerated.      Here,   then,   we   find  five    or   six   hundred  bishops 
residing  in  districts  of  country  not  more  extensive  than  some  of  our 
larger  states.     Can  any  reasonable  man  imagine,  for  a  moment, 
that  these  were  diocesans,  each  having  many  churches,  with  their 
pastors,  under  his   care  ?    It  is    impossible.      No  one   who   is 
acquainted  with  the  state  of  the  church  in  those  early  times,  and 
especially  with  the  difficulty  andinfrequency.of  long  journeys,  at 
that  period,  will  believe  that  these  bishops  were  any  other  than 
the  pastors  of  single  congregations.     To  suppose  that  they  were 
diocesans,  in  the  modern  sense  of  the  word,  would  be  an  absurdity. 
In  the  state  of  New  York  there  is  but  one  Episcopal  bishop ;  and 


TESTIMONY  OF  THE  FATHERS.  131 

over  all  the  ten  thousand  parish  churches  in  England,  there  are 
only  twenty-seven  of  this  order.  In  proportion  as  the  church, 
among  other  corruptions,  receded  from  the  sc-iptural  doctrine  of 
ministerial  parity,  in  the  same  proportion  those  who  were  called 
bishops  became  less  and  less  numerous ;  insomuch,  that  at  the 
great  council  of  Trent  there  were  only  about  forty  bishops 
convened. 

A  second  fact,  the  counterpart  of  the  preceding,  is  equally 
decisive.  It  is  the  small  number  of  souls  committed  to  the  care  of 
some  of  the  early  bishops.  We  are  informed  that  Gregory 
Thaumaturgus,when  he  was  made  bishop  of  Neo-ccesarea,  in 
Pontus,  about  A.  D.  250,  had  but  seventeen  professing1  Christians 
in  his  parish.*  And  in  many  of  the  early  writers  we  read  of 
bishops  being  located  in  small  obscure  villages,  within  three  or 
four  miles  of  each  other.  This  is  surely  descriptive  of  parochial, 
and  not  of  diocesan  Episcopacy.  It  would,  manifestly,  be  the 
height  of  absurdity  to  suppose  that  pastors  who  could  not  possibly 
have  more  than  a  few  hundred  souls  under  their  care,  were  any 
other  than  overseers  of  single  congregations. 

A  third  fact,  which  goes  far  towards  proving  that  bishops,  in 
early  times,  were  the  ordinary  pastors  of  single  congregations,  is 
that  it  was  then  customary  for  the  flock  of  which  the  bishop  was 
to  have  the  charge,  to  meet  together  for  the  purpose  of  electing 
him  ;  and  he  was  always  ordained  in  their  presence.  Cyprian, 
in  a  passage  quoted  in  a  preceding  page,  expressly  tells  us,  that 
these  were  standing  rules  in  choosing  and  ordaining  bishops ; 
and  Eusebius,  (lib.  6.  cap.  28,  p.  229.)  in  giving  an  account  of 
the  election  of  Fabianus  to  the  office  of  bishop,  in  Rome,  confirms 
the  statement  of  Cyprian.  He  tells  us,  that  upon  the  death  of  Bishop 
Anterus,  "  All  the  people  met  together  in  the*  church  to 'choose  a 
"  successor,  proposing  several  illustrious  and  eminent  personages 
"  as  fit  for  that  office,  whilst  no  one  so  much  as  thought  upon 
"  Fabianus,  then  present,  till  a  dove  miraculously  came  and  sat 
"  upon  his  head,  in  the  same  manner  as  the  Holy  Ghost  formerly 
"  descended  on  our  Saviour  ;  and  then  all  the  people,  guided  as  it 
"  were  with  one  divine  spirit,  cried  out  with  one  mind  and  soul, 
"  that  Fabianus  was  worthy  of  the  bishoprick :  and  so  straightway 

*  Gregor.Nyss.  Oper.  Vol.  II.  p.  979. 


132  LETTER  V. 

"  taking  him,  they  placed  him  on  the  Episcopal  throne."  The 
very  existence  of  these  rules  in  early  times  shows  that  bishops 
were  then  nothing  more  than  the  pastors  of  single  churches ;  for  in 
no  other  case  is  the  application  of  such  rules  possible.  And 
accordingly  afterwards,  when  diocesan  Episcopacy  crept  into  the 
church,  this  mode  of  choosing  and  ordaining  bishops  became 
impracticable,  and  was  gradually  laid  aside. 

A  fourth  fact,  which  shows  that  the  primitive  bishop  was  the 
pastor  of  a  single  church  or  congregation,  is  that  in  the  first  three 
centuries,  the  bishop's  charge  was  commonly  called  tfagoixja,  a 
parish,  signifying  those  who  resided  in  the  immediate  vicinity  of 
each  other.  But,  in  process  of  time,  when  the  bishop's  power 
was  enlarged,  and  his  territorial  limits  extended^  his  charge  began 
to  be  called  Smxytf^,  a  diocese,  a  word  notoriously  taken  from 
the  secular  language  of  the  Roman  empire,  and  expressive  of  a 
larger  jurisdiction.  This  change  of  diction,  evidently  contempo- 
rary with  the  change  of  fact,  is  too  significant  to  be  overlooked. 

A  Jifth  fact,  which  shows  that  primitive  Episcopacy  was 
parochial  and  not  diocesan,  is,  that  for  a  considerable  time  after 
the  days  of  the  apostles,  all  the  elders  who  were  connected  with  a 
bishop,  are  represented  as  belonging  'to  the  same  congregation 
with  him,  and  sitting  with  him  when  the  congregation  was  con- 
vened for  public  worship.  Indeed,  some  of  the  early  writers  go  so 
far  as  to  inform  us  in  what  manner  they  were  seated,  viz.  that  the 
bishop  sat  in  the  middle  of  a  semi-circular  bench  ;  that  the  elders 
took  their  places  on  the  same  bench,  on  each  side  of  their  president 
or  moderator ;  and  that  the  deacons  remained  in  a  standing 
posture  in  the  front  of  this  seat,  and  in  a  lower  place,  ready  to 
perform  the  services  required  of  them.  This  representation  per- 
fectly accords  with  our  doctrine  of  primitive  episcopacy,  in  which 
every  congregation  was  furnished  with  a  bishop,  elders,  and  dea- 
cons ;  but  cannot  possibly  be  reconciled  with  the  diocesan  form. 

A  sixth  fact,  which  shows  that  the  primitive  bishop  was  only 
the  pastor  of  a  single  congregation,  is,  that  the  early  writers 
represent  the  bishop  as  living  in  the  same  house  with  his  presby- 
ters or  elders;  a  house  near  the  place  of  worship  to  which  they 
resorted,  and  capable  of  accommodating  them  all.  They  tell  us, 
also,  that  the  bishop,  together  with  his  elders,  were  supported  by 
the  same  oblations  ;  that  these  oblations  were  offered  on  one  altar, 


TESTIMONY  OF  THE  FATHERS.  133 

or  communion  table;  and  that  they  were  constantly  divided, 
agreeably  to  certain .  established  rules  between  the  bishop  and 
elders.  It  must  be  obvious  to  every  impartial  reader,  that  this 
account  agrees  only  with  the  system  of  parochial  episcopacy,  and 
that  on  any  other  principle  such  a  plan  of  procedure  would  be  at 
once  impracticable  and  absurd. 

The  last  circumstance  relating  to  the  primitive  bishop  which 
serves  to  fix  his  character,  as  the  pastor  of  a  single  congregation,  is 
the  nature  of  that  service  which  he  was  accustomed  to  perform. 
We  have  seen  something  of  this  in  the  foregoing  quotations ;  but , 
it  will  be  proper  to  bring  together  into  one  view  the  duties  incum- 
bent on  the  bishop,  in  the  apostolic  and  immediately  succeeding 
ages.  The  early  writers,  then,  speak  of  the  primitive  bishop  as 
performing,  in  general,  all  the  baptisms  in  his  flock  ;  as  the  only 
personwho,  ino  rdinary  cases,  administered  the  Lord's  Supper  ;  as 
constantly  present  with  his  people  when  convened  ;  as  the  leader 
of  their  worship;  as  their  stated  public  instructor;  as  visiting  all 
the  sick  under  his  care  ;  as  catechising  the  young  people  several 
times  in  each  week ;  as  having  the  superintendency  of  the  poor, 
none  of  whom  were  to  be  relieved  by  the  deacons  without,  in  each 
particular  case,  consulting  the  bishop ;  as  celebrating  all  marriages; 
as  attending  all  funerals  ;  as  under  obligations  to  be  personally 
acquainted  with  every  individual  of  his  flock,  not  overlooking  even 
the  servant-men  and  maids ;  as  employed  in  healing  differences 
among  neighbours;  and  besides  all  these,  attending  to  the  discipline 
of  his  society,  receiving  and  excluding  members,  &c.  &c.  Now  is 
it  not  evident  that  no  man  could  perform  these  duties  for  more  than 
a  single  congregation  ?  Can  any  impartial  reader  believe  that  the 
officers  to  whom  all  these  details  of  parochial  labours  were  allotted, 
were  any  other  than  the  pastors  of  particular  churches  ?  To  suppose 
that  they  were  diocesan  bishops,  having  a  number  of  congregations, 
with  subordinate  pastors,  under  their  control,  is  a  supposition  too 
absurd  to  be  for  a  moment  admitted. 

Such  is  the  testimony  of  the  later  fathers  on  the  subject  before 
us.  We  can  find  much  evidence  that,  after  the  close  of  the  third 
century,  a  difference  of  rank  between  bishops  and  ordinary 
presbyters  began  to  be  generally  acknowledged;  but  we  can  find 
no  evidence  whatever,  within  the  first  four  centuries,  that  the 
Christian  church  considered  diocesan  Episcopacy  as  the  apostolic 


134  LETTER  V. 

and  primitive  form.  On  the  contrary,  we  have  found  several 
fathers  of  high  reputation  expressly  declaring,  that  in  the  primitive 
church  bishop  and  presbyter  were  the  same ;  and  that  prelacy,  as 
it  existed  in  the  fourth  and  following  centuries,  was  a  human 
invention,  and  gradually  adopted  in  the  church,  as  a  measure  of 
prudence.  We  have  found,  in  particular,  one  father,  who  stands 
at  the  pinnacle  of  honour,  for  learning  as  well  as  piety,  maintain- 
ing both  these  positions  with  a  clearness,  a  force  of  argument,  and 
a  detail  of  illustration,  which  one  would  imagine  might  satisfy 
incredulity  itself.  And  we  have  seen  in  these  early  writers,  a 
variety  of  facts  incidentally  stated ;  facts  which,  taken  alone, 
would  be  considered  by  any  court  on  earth  as  affording  conclusive 
proof,  that  even  after  a  moderate  kind  of  prelacy  arose,  the  bishops 
were  still  the  pastors  of  single  congregations. 

I  will  not  exhaust  your  patience,  my  brethren,  by  pursuing 
further  a  chain  of  testimony  so  clear  and  indisputable.  I  have 
intentionally  disguised  nothing  that  seemed  to  favour  the  Episcopal 
cause  ;  and,  indeed,  amidst  such  poverty  of  even  plausible  evidence 
in  their  behalf,  there  is  little  temptation  to  disguise  any  thing.  It 
has  truly  filled  me  with  surprise  at  every  step  of  my  progress,  to 
observe,  that,  with  all  the  confidence  of  assertion,  and  all  the 
parade  of  testimony,  exhibited  by  the  friends  of  prelacy,  they  should 
be  able  to  produce  so  little  from  the  fathers,  their  strong  hold, 
which  can  yield  them  even  the  semblance  of  support.  I  cannot, 
therefore,  conclude  this  letter  in  words  more  expressive  of  my  fixed 
opinion,  than  thosejof  a  distinguished  bishop  of  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land, who,  though  he  regarded  prelacy  as  a  wise  human  institution, 
steadfastly  resisted  the  claim  of  divine  right,  which  some  high 
churchmen  in  his  day  were  disposed  to  urge.  After  having  stated 
some  of  their  most  plausible  arguments,  he  declares, "  I  hope  my 
"  reader  will  now  see  what  weak  proofs  are  brought  for  this 
"  distinction  and  superiority  of  order.  No  scripture;  no  primitive 
"  general  council ;  no  general  consent  of  primitive  doctors  and 
"  fathers  ;  no,  not  one  primitive  father  of  note,  speaking  particularly 
"  and  home  to  their  purpose.'7* 

*  Bishop  Croft's  Naked  Truth,  p.  4%. 


(  135  ) 


LETTER  VI. 

TESTIMONY  OF  THE  REFORMERS,  AND  OTHER  WITNESSES  FOR  THE 
TRUTH,  IN  DIFFERENT  AGES  AND  NATIONS. 

CHRISTIAN  BRETHREN, 

You  have  been  already  reminded,  that  neither  the  question  be- 
fore us,  nor  any  other  which  relates  to  the  faith  or  the  order  of  the 
church,  is  to  be  decided  by  Tinman  authority.  We  have  a  higher 
and  more  unerring  standard.  But  still,  when  there  is  a  remarkable 
concurrence  of  opinion  among  learned  and  holy  men,  in  favour  of 
any  doctrine  or  practice,  it  affords  a  strong  presumptive  argument 
that  such  doctrine  or  practice  is  conformable  to  Scripture.  Thus 
the  fact,  that  the  great  body  of  the  reformers  concurred  in  embrace- 
ing  and  supporting  that  system  of  evangelical  truth,  which  has.  been 
since  very  improperly  styled  Calvinism*,  is  justly  viewed  by  the 
friends  of  that  system  as  a  powerful  argument  in  its  favour.  Let  us 
apply  this  principle  to  the  case  under  consideration. 

It  has  been  common  for  the  zealous  friends  of  prelacy  to  insin- 
uate, that  the  Presbyterian  doctrine  of  parity  was  unknown  till  the 
time  of  Calvin;  that  he  was  the  first  distinguished  and  successful 
advocate  for  this  doctrine ;  and  that  the  great  body  of  the  re- 
formers totally  differed  from  him  on  this  subject,  and  embraced 
Episcopacy.  How  persons  even  tolerably  versed  in  the  history  of 
the  reformed  churches,  could  ever  allow  themselves  to  make  such 
a  representation,  1  am  altogether  at  a  loss  to  conceive.  Nothing 
certainly  can  be  more  remote  from. fact.  The  smallest  attention  to 
the  subject  will  convince  every  impartial  inquirer,  that  the  most 
distinguished  witnesses  for  evangelical  truth,  through  the  dark 
ages,  long  before  Calvin  lived,  maintained  the  doctrine  of  minis- 
terial parity ;  that  the  earliest  reformers,  both  in  Great  Britain  and 

*I  say  improperly  styled  Calvinism,  because,  to  say  nothing  of  its  much 
greater  antiquity,  the  same  system  had  been  distinctly  taught  by  several 
eminent  reformers,  and  among  others,  by  Luther  himself,  before  Calvin 
appeared. 


136  LETTER  VI. 

on  the  continent  of  Europe,  admitted  the  same  principle  ;  that  all 
the  reformed  churches,  excepting  that  of  England,  were  organized 
on  this  principle;  that  the  church  of  England  stands  alone  in  the 
whole  Protestant  world,  in  making  diocesan  Bishops  an  order  of 
clergy,  superior  to  presbyters;  and  that  even  those  venerable  men 
who  finally  settled  her  government  and  worship,  did  not  consider 
this  superiority  as  resting  on  the  ground  of  Divine  appointment, 
but  of  ecclesiastical  usage  and  human  expediency. 

If  I  mistake  not,  it  will  be  easy  to  satisfy  you,  by  a  very  brief 
induction  of  facts,  that  these  assertions  are  not  lightly  made, 

In  the  honourable  catalogue  of  witnesses  for  the  truth,  amidst  the 
corruption  and  darkness  of  papal  error,  the  Waldenses  hold  the 
first  place.  They  began  to  appear  about  the  close  of  the  seventh 
century,  when  they  resided  chiefly  in  the  valleys  of  Piedmont.  But 
they  afterwards  greatly  multiplied,  spread  themselves  extensively 
in  France,  Switzerland,  and  Italy,  and,  under  different  names  in 
different  districts,  continued  their  testimony  in  favour  of  evangeli- 
cal truth,  for  a  number  of  centuries.  All  Protestant  historians  con- 
cur in  representing  them  as  constituting  the  purest  part  of  the 
Christian  church  for  several  ages  :  and  Reinerius,  who  had  once 
lived  among  them,  and  who  was  their  bitter  persecutor,  says, 
"  They  are  more  pernicious  to  the  church  of  Rome  than  any  other 
"  sect  of  heretics,  for  three  reasons  :  1.  Because  they  are  older  than 
"  any  other  sect ;  for  some  say  that  they  have  been  ever  since  the 
"  time  of  Sylvester  ;  and  others  say,  from  the  time  of  the  apostles. 
u  2.  Because  they  are  more  extensively  spread than  any  other  sect ; 
"  there  being  scarcely  a  country  into  which  they  have  not  crept. 
"  3.  Because  other  sects  are  abominable  to  God  for  their  blasphe- 
"  mies  ;  but  the  Waldenses  are  more  pious  than  any  other  heretics; 
"  they  believe  truly  of  God,  live  justly  before  men,  and  receive  all 
"  the  articles  of  the  creed  ;  only  they  hate  the  church  of  Rome." 

Among  the  numerous  points  in  which  these  witnesses  for  the 
truth  rejected  the  errors  of  the  Romish  church,  and  contended  for 
the  doctrine  of  Scripture,  and  the  apostolic  age,  one  was  that  there 
ought  to  be  no  diversity  of  rank  among  ministers  of  the  Gospel ; 
that  bishops  and  presbyters,  according  to  the  word  of  God,  and 
primitive  practice,  were  the  same  order.  Nor  did  they  merely  em- 
brace this  doctrine  in  theory.  Their  ecclesiastical  organization  was 
Presbvterian  in  its  form.  I  know  that  this  fact  concerning  the 


TESTIMONY  OF  THE  REFORMERS.  137 

Waldenses  has  been  denied  ;  but  it  is  established  beyond  all  reason- 
able question  by  authentic  historians.  Perriny  JEneas  Sylvius,* 
Thuanus,  Walsingham,  and  others,  who  considered  the  tenet  as  a 
most  offensive  one,  expressly  assert  that  they  held  it.  And 
although  at  some  periods  of  their  history  they  had  persons  among 
them  whom  they  denominated  bishops  ;  yet  it  is  well  known  that 
they  were  mere  presbyters,  who  received  no  new  consecration  as 
bishops;  and  that  they  laid  claim  to  no  superiority  of  order  or 
power. 

The  noble  stand  in  defence  of  evangelical  truth,  made  by  the 
celebrated  Dr.  John  WickliffeJ  is  well  known.  This  illustrious 
English  divine  was  professor  of  divinity  in  the  university  of  Oxford, 
and  has  been  frequently  called  "  the  morning  star  of  the  reforma- 
"  tion."  He  protested  with  great  boldness  and  zeal  against  the  super- 
stitions of  the  church  of  Rome,  and  taught  a  system,  both  of  doctrine 
and  order,  remarkably  similar  to  that  which  Luther,  Calvin,  and  the 
great  body  of  the  reformers,  two  hundred  years  afterwards,  united  in 
recommending  to  the  Christian  world.J  "  He  was  for  rejecting  all 
"  mere  human  rites,  and  new  shadows  or  traditions  in  religion  ; 
"  and  with  regard  to  the  identity  of  the  order  of  bishops  and 
"  priests  in  the  apostolic  age,  he  is  very  positive  :  Unum  audacter 
"  assero,"  &c.  "  One  thing  I  boldly  assert,  that  in  the  primitive 
"  church,  or  in  the  time  of  the  Apostle  Paul,  two  orders  of  clergy 
"  were  thought  sufficient,  viz.  Priest  and  Deacon  ;  and  I  do  also 
"  say,  that  in  the  time  of  Paul,  fait  idem  presbyter  atque  episco- 

*  JEmas  Sylvius  declares,  "  They  deny  the  hierarchy  ;  maintaining 
"  that  there  is  no  difference  among1  the  priests  by  reason  of  dignity  of 
"  office."  Quotations  equally  decisive  might  be  produced  from  other 
authentic  writers. 

f  "  IVickliffe,"  says  Bishop  Newcome,  "  was  not  only  a  good  divine, 
"  and  scripturist,  but  well  skilled  in  the  civil,  canon,  and  English  law. 
"  To  great  learning  and  abilities,  he  added  the  ornament  of  a  grave,  un- 
"  blemished,  and  pious  conduct." 

t  He  renounced  the  supremacy  of  the  pope;  rejected  the  heresy  of 
transubstantiation;  and  taught,  that  the  Bible  is  a  perfect  rule  of  life  and 
manners,  and  ought  to  be  read  by  the  people?  that  human  traditions  are 
superfluous  and  sinful  5  that  we  must  practise  and  teach  only  the  laws  of 
Christ ;  that  mystical  and  significant  ceremonies  in  religious  worship  are 
unlawful  ;  and  that  to  restrain  men  to  a  prescribed form  of  prayer,  is  con- 
trary to  the  liberty  granted  them  by  God. 

s 


138  LETTER  Vf. 

"  pits,  i.  e.  ,1  priest  and  a  bishop  were  one  and  the  same  ;  for  in 
"  those  times  the  distinct  orders  of  pope,  cardinals,  patriarchs,  arch- 
"  bishops,  bishops,  arch-deacons,  officials,  and  deans,  were  not 
"  invented."*  The  followers  of  Wickliffe  imbibed  this  as  well  as 
the  other  opinions  of  their  master  ;  and,  accordingly,  it  is  well 
known  that  they  held  and  practised  ordination  by  presbyters,  not 
for  want  of  diocesan  bishops,  but  on  the  avowed  principle,  that  they 
considered  all  ministers  who  u  laboured  in  the  word  and  doctrine," 
and  administered  sacraments,  as  having  equal  power.t 

The  renowned  martyrs,  John  Huss  and  Jerome,  of  Prague,f 
who  laid  down  their  lives  for  the  truth,  a  little  after  the  time  of 
Wickliffe,  embraced  the  greater  part,  if  not  all  the  opinions  of  the 
English  reformer,  and  especially  his  doctrine  concerning  the  parity 
of  Christian  ministers.  Their  disciples  acted  in  conformity  with 
this  doctrine.  Mneas  Sylvius,  (afterwards  Pius  II.)  speaking  of 
of  the  Hussites,  says,  "One  of  the  dogmas  of  this  pestiferous 
"  sect,  is,  that  there  is  no  difference  of  order  among  those  who  bear 
"  the  priestly  office."  This  account  is  confirmed  by  the  historian 
Thuantts,  who  expressly  speaks  of  their  opinions  as  resembling 
those  of  the  English  dissenters. 

The  churches  which  ecclesiastical  historians  have  generally 
distinguished  by  the  title  of  the  Bohemian  brethren,  and  which 
flourished  before  the  time  of  Luther,  are  considered  as  the  descend- 
ants of  the  Hussites,  and  as  having  inherited  their  opinions  as  well 
as  their  evangelical  spirit.  These  churches  distinctly  held  and 
taught,  as  their  book  of  discipline  proves,  that  there  is  but  one 
order  of  ministers  of  divine  right,  and,  of  course,  that  all  difference 
of  grades  in  the  ministry,  is  a  matter  of  human  prudence.  They 
had,  indeed,  among  them  persons  who  were  styled  bishops  ;  but 
they  expressly  disavowed  the  divine  institution  of  this  order  5  and 
what  is  more,  they  derived  their  ministerial  succession  from  the 

*  See  Lewis's  Life  of  Wickliffe t  8vo.  1720. 

\  See  Wakingham's  Hist.  Brevis  A.  D.  1389,  339—340. 

t  Huss  and  Jerome  were  celebrated  for  their  learning  as  well  as  piety, 
and  were  both  distinguished  members  of  the  University  of  Prague.  The 
former  was  more  particularly  eminent  on  account  of  his  erudition  and 
eloquence,  and  performed  at  the  same  time  the  functions  of  professor  of 
divinity  in  the  University,  and  pastor  of  the  church  in  that  city. 
Mosheim. 


TESTIMONY  OF  THE  REFORMERS.  139 

Waldenses,  who  had  no  other,  strictly  speaking,  than  Presbyterian 
bishops.  Even  Comenius,  their  celebrated  historian,  who  says 
most  about  their  bishops,  distinctly  acknowledges  that  bishop  and 
presbyter  are  the  same  by  divine  right.  It  is  also  an  undoubted 
and  remarkable  fact,  that  the  Bohemian  brethren  retained  the  office 
of  ruling  elder  in  their  churches;  an  office  which,  toward  the  latter 
part  of  the  fourth  century,  had  been,  in  the  greater  part  of  the 
Christian  world,  discontinued.  The  following  representation  by 
the  learned  Bucer,  will  be  deemed,  by  those  who  are  acquainted 
with  his  character,  conclusive  as  to  this  fact.  "  The  Bohemian 
"  brethren,  who  almost  alone  preserved  in  the  world  the  purity  of 
"  the  doctrine,  and  the  vigor  of  the  discipline  of  Christ,  observed 
"  an  excellent  rule,  for  which  we  are  compelled  to  give  them  credit, 
"  and  especially  to  praise  that  God  who  thus  wrought  by  them ; 
66  notwithstanding  those  brethren  are  preposterously  despised  by 
"  some  learned  men.  The  rule  which  they  observed  was  this  : 
"  Besides  ministers  of  the  word  and  sacraments,  they  had,  in  each 
"  church,  a  bench  or  college  of  men  excelling  in  gravity  and  pru- 
"  dence,  who  performed  the  duties  of  admonishing  and  correcting 
"  offenders,  composing  differences,  and  judicially  deciding  in  cases 
"of  dispute.  Of  this  kind  of  elders,  Hilary  wrote,  when  he  said, 
u  Unde  et  Synagoga"  &c.  Script.  Advers.  Latom.  p.  77- 

The  celebrated  Mr.  Tindal,  a  canon  of  Oxford,  who  gave  the 
first  translation  of  the  Bible  into  English,  and  who  suffered  martyr- 
dom in  the  reign  of  Henry  VIII.  for  his  zeal  and  his  distinguished 
labours  in  the  cause  of  truth,  has  the  following  explicit  declaration, 
in  his  Practice  of  Popish  Prelates.  "  The  apostles  following  and 
"  obeying  the  rule,  doctrine,  and  commandment  of  our  Saviour, 
u  ordained  in  his  kingdom  and  congregation,  two  officers,  one 
" called  after  the  Greek  word,  bishop,  in  English,  an  Overseer; 
ct  which  same  was  called  Priest,  after  the  Greek.  Another  officer 
"  they  chose,  and  called  him  deacon,  after  the  Greek  ;  a  minister, 
"  in  English,  to  minister  alms  to  the  poor.  All  that  were  called 
"  elders  (or  priests,  if  they  so  will)  were  called  bishops  also,  though 
"  they  have  now  divided  the  names." 

The  famous  John  Lambert,  another  martyr  in  the  same  reign, 
who  is  represented  even  by  Episcopal  historians,  as  a  man  of  great 
learning,  as  well  as  meekness  and  piety,  expressed  himself  on  the 
subject  under  consideration  in  the  following  manner:  "  As  touch- 
"  ing  priesthood  in  the  primitive  church,  when  virtue  bare  the  most 


140  LETTER  VI. 

"  room,  there  were  no  more  officers  in  the  church  than  bishops  and 
<c  deacons,  as  witnesseth.  besides  scripture,  full  apertly  Jerome,  in 
"  his  commentary  upon  St.  Paul's  epistles,  where  he  saith,  that 
"  those  we  call  priests,  were  all  one,  and  no  other  but  bishops, 
11  and  the  bishops  none  but  priests." 

The  fathers  of  the  reformation  in  England  were  Presbyterians 
in  principle  ;  that  is,  a  majority  of  the  most  pious  and  learned 
among  them  considered  bishop  and  presbyter  as  the  same,  by  divine 
right.  But  as  the  influence  of  the  crown  was  exerted  in  favour  of 
prelacy  ;  as  many  of  the  bishops  were  opposed  to  the  reformation 
altogether ;  and  as  the  right  of  the  civil  magistrate  to  direct  the 
outward  organization  of  the  church  at  pleasure,  was  acknowledged 
by  all  the  reformers,  they  yielded  to  the  establishment  of  diocesan 
episcopacy,  as  the  most  suitable  form  of  government  in  the  cir- 
cumstances then  existing.  But  it  does  not  appear  that  any  one  of 
them  thought  of  placing  episcopacy  on  the  footing  of  divine  right, 
and  far  less  of  representing  it  as  of  such  indispensable  and  unalter- 
able necessity,  as  many  of  their  less  learned  sons  have  thought 
proper  to  maintain  since  that  time.  I  know  that  this  fact,  concerning 
those  venerable  reformers,  has  been  denied.  But  I  know,  at  the 
same  time,  that  it  rests  on  proof  the  most  complete  and  satisfactory, 
and  which  will  ever  resist  all  the  ingenious  arts  which  have  been 
used  to  set  it  aside. 

Jn  the  year  1537?  in  the  reign  of  Henry  VIII.  there  was  a  book 
published  for  the  purpose  of  promoting  the  reformation,  entitled, 
Ihe  Institution  of  a  Christian  Man.  It  was  called  the  Bishops9 
Book,  because  it  was  composed  by  Archbishop  Cranmer,  and 
several  other  prelates.  It  was  recommended  and  subscribed  by  the 
two  archbishops,  by  nineteen  bishops,  and  by  the  lower  house  of 
convocation;  published  under  the  authority  of  the  king,  and  its 
contents  ordered  to  be  preached  to  ihe  whole  kingdom.  In  this 
book  it  is  expressly  said,  that,  "although  the  fathers  of  the  suc- 
"  ceeding  church,  after  the  apostles  instituted  certain  inferior  degrees 
"  of  ministry;  yet  the  truth  is,  that  in  the  New  Testament  there  is 
"  no  mention  made  of  any  other  degree  or  distinction  in  orders,  but 
"only  of  Deacons  or  Ministers,  and  of  Presbyters  or  Bishops.'7* 

*"  In  Novo  Testamento,  nulla  mentio  facta  est  aliorum  Graduum,  aut 
"  distinctionum  in  Ordinibus,  sed  Diaconorum  (vel  ministrorum)  et 
"  Presbyterorum  (vel  Episcoporum.") 


TESTIMONY  OF  THE  REFORMERS.  141 

Aboui  six  years  after  the  publication  of  this  book,  another  ap- 
peared, which  was  designed  to  promote  the  same  laudable  purpose. 
This  was  entitled,  "  The  Necessary  Erudition  of  a  Christian 
Man."  It.  was  drawn  up  by  a  committee  of  bishops  and  other 
divines,  was  afterwards  read-and  approved  by  the  lords  spiritual  and 
temporal,  and  the  lower  house  of  parliament ;  was  prefaced  by  the 
king  and  published  by  his  command.  This  book  certainly  proves 
that  those  who  drew  it  up,  had  obtained  much  more  just  and  clear 
views  of  several  important  doctrines,  than  they  possessed  at  the  date 
of  the  former  publication.  But  with  regard  to  ministerial  parity, 
their  sentiments  remained  unchanged.  They  still  asserted  the 
same  doctrine.  They  say,  "St.  Paul  consecrated  and  ordained 
"  bishops  by  the  imposition  of  hands;  but  that  there  is  no  certain 
"  rule  prescribed  in  Scripture  for  the  nomination,  election,  or 
"  presentation  of  them ;  that  this  is  left  to  the  positive  laws  of 
"  every  community.  The  office  of  the  said  ministers  is,  to  preach 
u  the  word,  to  minister  the  sacraments,  to  bind  and  loose,  to  excom- 
<(  municate  those  that  will  not  be  reformed,  and  to  pray  for  the 
*(  universal  church.'7  Having  afterwards  mentioned  the  order  of 
deacons ,  they  go  on  to  say,  "  Of  these  two  orders  only,  that  is  to 
"  say,  priests  and  deacons,  Scripture  maketh  express  mention  ;  and 
ei  how  they  were  conferred  of  the  Apostles  by  prayer  and  imposi- 
«  tion  of  hands." 

About  five  years  after  the  last  named  publication,  viz.  about  the 
year  1548,  Edward  VI.  called  a  "  select  assembly  of  divines,  for 
the  resolution  of  several  questions  relative  to  the  settlement  of 
religion."  Of  this  assembly  Archbishop  Cranmer  was  a  leading 
member  ;  and  to  the  tenth  question,  which  respected  the  office  of 
bishops  and  presbyters,  that  venerable  prelate  replied,  "  bishops 
"  and  priests  were  at  one  time,  and  were  not  two  things,  but  one 
"  office,  in  the  beginning  of  Christ's  religion."  "  Thus  we  see," 
says  Dr.  Slillingflcet il  by  testimony  of  him  who  was  chieflv  instru- 
"  mental  in  our  reformation,  that  he  owned  not  episcopacy  as  a 
"  distinct  order  from  presbytery  by  divine  right,  but  only  as  a 
"  prudent  constitution  of  the  civil  magistrate  for  the  better  govern- 
"  ing  of  the  church."  Irenicum.  part  I.  chapter  VIII.  Two  other 
bishops,  together  with  Dr  Redmayn  and  Dr.  Cox  delivered  a  simi- 
lar opinion,  in  still  stronger  terms  ;  and  several  of  them  adduced 
Jerome  as  a  decided  authority  in  support  of  their  opinion.  An 


142  LETTER  VI. 

attempt  has  been  made  to  place  this  transaction  a  number  of  years 
further  back  than  k  really  stood,  in  order  to  show  that  it  was  at  a 
period  when  the  views  of  the  reformers,  with  respect  to  the  order 
of  the  church,  were  crude  and  immature.  But  if  Bishop  Stilling- 
fleet  and  Bishop  Burnet  are  to  be  believed,  such  were  the  language 
and  the  views  of  Cranmer  and  other  prelates,  in  the  reign  of  Ed- 
ward VI.  and  a  very  short  time  before  the  forms  of  ordination  and 
other  public  service  in  the  church  of  England  were  published  ;  in 
compiling  which,  it  is  acknowledged,  on  all  hands,  that  the  arch- 
bishop had  a  principal  share  ;  and  which  were  given  to  the  public 
in  the  third  year  of  the  reign  of  that  prince. 

Another  circumstance,  which  serves  to  show  that  Archbishop 
Cranmer  considered  the  episcopal  system 'in  which  he  shared,  as 
founded  rather  in  human  prudence  and  the  will  of  the  magistrates 
than  the  word  of  God,  is,  that  he  viewed  the  exercise  of  all  episco- 
pal jurisdiction  as  depending  on  the  pleasure  of  the  king  ;  and  that 
as  he  gave  it,  so  he  might  take  it  away  at  pleasure.  Agreeably  to 
this,  when  Henry  VIII.  died,  the  worthy  primate  regarded  his  own 
episcopal  power  as  expiring  with  him  ;  and  therefore  would  not 
act  as  archbishop  till  he  had  received  a  new  commission  from  king 
Edward. 

Accordingly,  when  these  great  reformers  went  further  than  to 
compile  temporary  and  fugitive  manuals  ;  when  they  undertook  to 
frame  the  fundamental  and  permanent  articles  of  their  church,  we 
find  them  carefully  guarding  against  any  exclusive  claim  in  behalf 
of  diocesan  episcopacy.  If  they  had  deemed  an  order  of  bishops 
superior  to  presbyters,  indispensably  necessary  to  the  regular  or- 
ganization of  the  church,  and  the  validity  of  Christian  ordinances, 
can  we  suppose  that  men  who  showed  themselves  so  faithful  and 
zealous  in  the  cause  of  Christ,  would  have  been  wholly  silent  on 
the  subject  ?  And,  above  all,  if  they  entertained  such  an  opinion, 
would  they  have  forborne  to  express  it  in  that  article  in  which  they 
undertook  formally  to  state  the  doctrine  of  their  church  with  respect 
to  the  Christian  ministry  ?  That  article  (the  23d)  is  couched  in  the 
following  terms.  "  It  is  not  lawful  for  any  man  to  take  upon  him 
"  the  office  of  public  preaching,  or  ministering  the  sacraments  in 
"  the  congregation,  before  he  be  lawfully  called  and  sent  to  execute 
"  the  same.  And  those  we  ought  to  judge  lawfully  called  and  sent, 
"  which  be  chosen  and  called  to  this  work  by  men,  who  have  pub- 


TESTIMONY  OF  THE  REFORMERS.  143 

«  lie  authority  given  unto  them  in  the  congregation,  to  call  and 
"  send  ministers  into  the  Lord's  vineyard."  Here  is  not  a  syllable 
said  of  diocesan  bishops,  or  of  the  necessity  of  episcopal  ordination; 
on  the  contrary,  there  is  most  evidently  displayed  a  studious  care 
to  employ  such  language  as  would  embrace  the  other  reformed 
churches,  and  recognize  as  valid  their  ministry  and  ordinances. 

And  that  such  was  really  the  design  of  those  who  drew  up  the 
articles  of  the  church  of  England,  is  expressly  asserted  by  Bishop 
Burnet,  who  will  be  pronounced  by  all  a  competent  judge,  both  of 
the  import  and  history  of  these  articles.  This  article,  he  observes, 
"  is  put  in  very  general  words,  far  from  that  magisterial  stiffness 
"  in  which  some  have  taken  upon  them  to  dictate  in  this  matter. 
"  They  who  drew  it  up,  had  the  state  of  the  several  churches  before 
"  their  eyes,  that  had  been  differently  reformed  ;  and  although 
"  their  own  had  been  less  forced  to  go  out  of  the  beaten  path  than 
"  any  other,  yet  they  knew  that  all  things  among  themselves  had 
"  not  gone  according  to  those  rules,  that  ought  to  be  sacred  in  regu- 
"  lar  times."  And,  in  a  subsequent  passage,  he  explicitly  declares, 
that  neither  the  reformers  of  th«  Church  of  England,  nor  their  suc- 
cessors, for  nearly  eighty  years  after  the  articles  were  published, 
did  ever  call  in  question  the  validity  of  the  ordination  practised  in 
the  foreign  reformed  churches,  by  presbyters  alone.  And  again, 
he  declares — "  Whatever  some  hotter  spirits  have  thought  of  this, 
"  since  that  time,  yet  we  are  very  sure,  that  not  only  those  who 
"  penned  the  articles,  but  the  body  of  this  church,  for  above  half 
"  an  age  after,  did,  notwithstanding  these  irregularities,  acknow- 
"  ledge  the  foreign  churches,  so  constituted,  to  be  true  churches,  as 
"  to  all  .the  essentials  of  a  church." 

Those  who  wish  to  persuade  us,  that  the  venerable  reformers  of 
the  church  of  England,  held  the  divine  right  of  diocesan  episcopacy, 
refer  us  to  the  ordination  service  drawn  up  by  them,  the  language 
of  which,  it  is  contended,  cannot  be  interpreted,  and  far  less  justi- 
fied, on  any  other  principle.  But  those  who  insist  on  this  argument, 
forget  that  the  ordination  service,  as  it  now  stands,  differs  consider  - 
bly  from  that  which  was  drawn  up  by  Cranmer  and  his  associates. 
If  I  mistake  not,  that  service,  as  it  came  from  the  hands  of  the 
reformers,  did  not  contain  a  sentence  inconsistent  with  the  opi- 
nions which  I  have  ascribed  to  them.  Above  an  hundred  years 
afterwards,  in  the  reign  of  Charles  II.  this  service  was  revised  and 


144  LETTER  VI. 

altered  ;  and  it  is  remarkable,  that  the  greater  part  of  the  altera- 
tions were  such  as  indicate  a  decided  intention  in  their  authors  to 
make  the  whole  speak  a  language  more  favourable  to  the  divine 
appointment  of  episcopacy  than  formerly.  In  the  opinion  of  good 
judges,  the  ordination  service  of  the  church  of  England  does  not 
even  now,  assert  the  divine  institution  of  prelacy  ;  but  as  left  by  the 
reformers,  it  certainly  contained  no  such  doctrine. 

In  conformity  with  this  principle,  an  act  of  Parliament  was  passed, 
in  the  13th  year  of  the  reign  of  Queen  Elizabeth,  to  reform  certain 
disorders  touching  ministers  of  the  church.  This  act,  as  Dr. 
Strype,  an  Episcopal  historian,  informs  us,  was  framed  with  an 
express  view  to  admitting  into  the  church  of  England,  those  who 
had  received  Presbyterian  ordination  in  the  foreign  reformed 
churches,  on  their  subscribing  the  articles  of  faith.  But  can  we 
suppose  that  both  houses  of  parliament,  one  of  them  including  the 
bench  of  Bishops,  would  have  consented  to  pass  such  an  act,  un- 
less the  principle  of  it  had  been  approved  by  the  most  influential 
divines  of  that  church  ? 

Nor  was  this  all.  The  conduct  of  the  English  Reformers  cor- 
responded with  their  laws  and  public  standards.  They  invited 
several  eminent  divines  from  the  foreign  Reformed  churches,  who 
had  received  no  other  than  Presbyterian  ordination,  to  come  over 
to  England;  and  on  their  arrival,  in  consequence  of  this  formal  in- 
vitation, actually  bestowed  upon  them  important  benefices  in  the 
Church  and  in  the  Universities.  A  more  decisive  testimony  could 
scarcely  be  given,  that  those  great  and  venerable  divines  had  no 
scruple  respecting  the  validity  of  ordination  by  presbyters.  Had 
they  held  the  opinion  of  some  modern  Episcopalians,  and-  at  the 
same  time  acted  thus,  they  would  have  been  chargeable  with  high 
treason  against  the  Redeemer's  kingdom,  and  have  merited  the 
reprobation  of  all  honest  men. 

But  further;  besides  inviting  these  distinguished  divines  into 
England,  and  giving  them  a  place  in  the  bosom  of  their  church, 
without  requiring  them  to  be  re-ordained,  Archbishops  Cran- 
mer  and  Grindal,  and  their  associates,  corresponded  with  Calvin  ; 
solicited  his  opinion  respecting  many  points  in  the  reformation  of 
the  church;  and  not  only  acknowledged  him  in  the  most  explicit 
manner,  to  be  a  regular  minister  of  Christ,  and  the  church  of  Gene- 
va, to  be  a  sister  church ;  but  also  addressed  him  in  terms  of  the 


TESTIMONY  OF  THE  REFORMERS.  145 

most  exalted  reverence,  and  heaped  upon  him  every  epithet  of 
honour.  Could  they  have  done  all  this,  if  they  had  considered  him 
subverting  the  very  foundation  of  the  church,  by  setting  aside  pre- 
lacy ?  When  I  look  at  the  language  of  the  first  British  reform 
ers  towards  this  venerable  servant  of  Christ;  when  I  hear  them,  not 
only  celebrating  his  learning  and  his  piety  in  the  strongest  terms, 
but  also  acknowledging,  in  terms  equally  strong,  his  noble  services 
in  the  cause  of  evangelical  truth,  and  of  the  Reformation;  and  when 
I  find  the  greatest  divines  that  .England  ever  bred,  for  near  a  cen- 
tury afterwards,  adopting  and  repeating  the  same  language,  I  am 
tempted  to  ask — are  some  modern  calumniators  of  Catbin  really 
ignorant  of  what  these  great  divines  of  their  own  church  have  thought 
and  said  respecting  him  ;  or  have  they  apostatised  as  much  from  the 
principles  of  their  own  reformers,  as  they  differ  from  Calvin  ? 

Another  testimony  as  to  the  light  in  which  ordination  by  pres- 
byters was  viewed  by  the  most  distinguished  reformers  of  the 
Church  of  England,  is  found  in  a  license  granted  by  archbishop 
Grindal,  to  the  Rev.  John  Morison,  a  Presbyterian  minister, 
dated  April  6,  1582  :  "  Since  you,  the  said  John  Morison,  were 
"admitted  and  ordained  to  sacred  orders,  and  the  holy  ministry 
"  by  the  imposition  of  hands,  according  to  the  laudable  form  and 
"  rite  of  the  reformed  church  of  Scotland.  We,  therefore,  as  much 
"  as  lies  in  us,  and  as  by  right  we  may,  approving  and  ratifying 
"  the  form  of  your  ordination  and  preferment,  done  in  such 
"  manner  aforesaid,  grant  unto  you  a  license  and  faculty,  that  in 
"  such  orders,  by  you  taken,  you  may,  and  have  power,  in  any 
"convenient  places,  in  and  throughout  the  whole  province  of 
"  Canterbury,  to  celebrate  divine  offices,  and  to  minister  the  sacra- 
"  ments,"  &c.  Here  is  not  only  an  explicit  acknowledgment  that 
ordination  by  presbyters  is  valid,  but  an  eulogium  on  it  as  laudable^ 
and  this  not  by  an  obscure  character,  but  by  the  primate  of  the 
Church  of  England. 

An  acknowledgment,  still  more  solemn  and  decisive,  is  made  in 
one  of  the  Canons  of'  the  Church  of  England,  in  which  all  her 
clergy  are  commanded  "  to  pray  for  the  churches  of  England, 
"  Scotland,  and  Ireland,  as  parts  of  Christ's  holy  Catholic  church, 
"  which  is  dispersed  throughout  the  world."  This  canon  (the  55th) 
among  others,  was  enacted  in  1604,  when  the  church  of  Scotland 
was,  as  it  now  is,  Presbyterian  ;  and  although  the  persons  who 
T 


146  LETTER  VI. 

were  chiefly  instrumental  in  forming  and  adopting  these  canons, 
had  high  episcopal  notions  ;  yet  the  idea  I  hat  those  churches  which 
were  not  episcopal  in  their  form,  were  not  to  be  considered  as  true 
churches  of  Christ,  seems  at  this  time  to  have  been  entertained  by 
no  person  of  any  influence  in  the  church  of  England.  This 
extravagance  was  reserved  for  after  limes,  and  the  invention  of  it 
for  persons  of  a  very  different  spirit  from  that  of  the  Cranmers,  the 
Grindals,  and  the  Abbots  of  the  preceding  age. 

Dr.  Warner,  a  learned  episcopal  historian,  declares,  that 
"  Archbishop  Bancroft  was  ihejirst  man  in  the  church  of  Eng- 
11  land  who  preached  up  the  divine  right  of  Episcopacy."  The 
same  is  asserted  by  many  other  episcopal  writers ;  and  this  pas- 
sage from  Warner  is  quoted  with  approbation  by  bishop  White  of 
Pennsylvania,  in  his  Case  of  the  Episcopal  Churches,  in  showing 
that  the  doctrine  which  founds  Episcopacy  on  divine  right,  has 
never  been  embraced  by  the  great  body  of  the  most  esteemed 
divines  in  the  church  of  England. 

Another  fact  which  corroborates  the  foregoing  statement  is,  that 
Dr.  Laud,  afterwards  Archbishop,  in  a  public  disputation  before 
the  University  of  Oxford,  venturing  to  assert  the  superiority  of 
bishops,  by  divine  right,  was  publicly  checked  by  Dr.  Holland, 
professor  of  divinity  in  that  university,  who  told  him  that "  he  was 
"  a  schismatic,  and  went  about  to  make  a  division  between  the 
English  and  other  reformed  churches.'7 

The  reformation  in  Scotland  commenced  in  the  year  1560. 
The  constitution  of  that  Church  was  formed,  as  every  one  knows, 
on  the  Presbyterian  plan.  This  form  was  retained  until  the  year 
1610,  when  prelacy  was  violently  introduced,  against  the  sense  of 
the  nation.  In  that  year  Spotiswood,  Lamb,  and  Hamilton,  were 
consecrated  bishops  in  London,  by  some  of  the  English  prelates  ; 
and  on  their  return  home,  imparted  the  episcopal  dignity  to  a  num- 
ber of  others.  As  they  had  been  presbyters  before  this  time, 
archbishop  Bancroft  proceeded  to  their  consecration  as  bishops, 
without  requiring  them  to  be  previously  re-ordained  as  priests, 
expressly  delivering  it  as  his  opinion,  that  their  former  Presbyte- 
rian ordination  was  valid.  The  church  of  Scotland  remained 
episcopal  until  the  year  1639,  when  prelacy  was  abolished,  and 
the  bishops  deposed.  On  this  occasion  three  of  these  prelates 
renounced  their  episcopal  orders,  were  received  by  the  Presbyterian 


TESTIMONY  OF  THE  REFORMERS.  147 

clergy  as  plain  presbyters,  and  officiated  as  such  while  they  lived. 
The  rest  were  either  excommunicated  from  the  church,  or  deprived 
of  their  ministerial  functions.  In  the  year  l66l,  Episcopacy  was 
again  introduced  into  Scotland,  and  remained  the  established 
religion  of  the  country  until  the  Revolution  of  1688,  when  it  was 
again  set  aside,  and  Presbyterianism  restored,  which  remains  to  the 
present  day. 

Now  it  is  a  remarkable  fact,  that,  amidst  all  these  revolutions  in 
the  church  government  of  Scotland,  the  validity  of  ordination  by 
presbyters,  was  never  denied  or  called  in  question.  We  have 
already  seen  that  Archbishop  Bancroft  pronounced  the  Presbyte- 
rian ordination  of  Spotiswood,  Lamb,  and  Hamilton,  to  be  valid. 
But  further;  in  1610,  when  prelacy  was  first  established,  the 
bishops  agreed  that  the  body  of  the  Presbyterian  clergy  should  be 
considered  as  regular  ministers  in  the  church,  on  consenting  to 
acknowledge  them  as  their  ecclesiastical  superiors,  without  sub- 
mitting to  be  re-ordained.  And  this  arrangement  was  actually 
carried  into  effect.  Again,  in  l66l,  at  the  second  introduction  of 
episcopacy,  the  same  plan  of  accommodation  was  agreed  upon  and 
executed,  though  a  much  smaller  number  of  the  clergy  submitted 
to  its  terms.  And,  which  is  a  fact  no  less  decisive,  at  the  revolution 
in  1688,  when  Presbyterianism  was  restored,  four  hundred 
episcopal  clergymen  came  into  the  bosom  of  the  Presbyterian 
church,  acknowledged  the  validity  of  her  orders  and  ministrations, 
and  were  received  into  connexion  with  her  on  the  basis  of  such 
acknowledgment.  Nor  is  this  all.  About  the  time  of  the  first 
introduction  of  Episcopacy  into  Scotland,  a  number  of  the  people 
and  their  clergy,  who  were  all  Presbyterian,  removed  from  that 
country  ^nto  the  north  of  Ireland,  where  Episcopacy  was  also 
established.  To  accommodate  a  number  of  the  clergy,  who  were 
in  this  situation,  the  bishops  in  England  drew  up  and  transmitted 
to  Ireland  a  plan  of  proceeding  in  their  case,  which  recognized  the 
validity  of  their  ordination,  and  by  means  of  which,  without  being 
re-ordained,  they  were  actually  incorporated  with  the  established 
church.  It  is  not  possible  to  contemplate  this  series  of  facts, 
without  perceiving,  as  Bishop  Burnet  declares,  that,  for  a  long 
time  after  the  commencement  of  the  reformation  in  Great  Britain, 
the  validity  of  Presbyterian  ordination  was  distinctly  and  uniformly 
acknowledged. 


148  LETTER  VI. 

It  were  easy  to  fill  a  volume  with  testimony  to  the  same  amount. 
But  it  is  not  necessary.  If  there  be  any  fact  in  the  history  of  the 
British  churches  capable  of  being  demonstrated,  it  is,  that  their 
venerable  reformers  uniformly  acknowledged  the  other  protestant 
churches  formed  on  the  Presbyterian  plan,  to  be  sound  mem- 
bers of  the  Universal  Church,  and  maintained  a  constant  and 
affectionate  intercourse  with  them  as  such.  This  is  so  evident 
from  their  writings  and  their  conduct,  and  has  been  so  fully 
conceded  by  the  ablest  and  most  impartial  judges  among  Episco- 
palians themselves,  that  it  would  be  a  waste  of  time  further  to 
pursue  the  proof. 

From  the  English  reformers  let  us  pass  on  to  those  distinguished 
worthies  who  were  made  the  instruments  of  reformation  on  the 
continent  of  Europe.  Luther  began  this  glorious  work  in  Germany, 
in  the  year  1517.  About  the  same  time  the  standard  of  truth  was 
raised  by  Zuingle,\i\  Switzerland ;  and  soon  afterwards  these 
great  men  were  joined  by  Carlostadt,Mdanr.thon,  Oecolampadius, 
Calvin,  Beza,  and  others.  The  pious  exertions  of  these  witnesses 
for  the  truth  were  as  eminently  blessed  as  they  were  active  and 
unwearied.  Princes,  and  a  multitude  of  less  celebrated  divines, 
came  their  to  help.  Insomuch  that  before  the  close  of  that  century, 
numerous  and  flourishing  Protestant  churches  were  planted  through- 
out Germany,  France,  Switzerland,  the  Low  Countries,  Sweden, 
Denmark,  and  various  other  parts  of  Europe,  from  the  Mediter- 
ranean to  the  confines  of  Russia. 

Now  it  is  well  known  that  all  these  Protestants  on  the  continent 
of  Europe,  when  they  threw  off  the  fetters  of  papal  authority,  and 
were  left  free  to  follow  the  word  of  God,  without  any  exception, 
recognized  the  doctrine  of  ministerial  parity,  and  embraced  it,  not 
only  in  theory,  but  also  in  practice.  They  established  all  their 
churches  on  the  basis  of  that  principle;  and  to  the  present  hour 
bear  testimony  in  its  favour.  This  may  be  abundantly  proved, 
by  recurring  to  their  original  confessions  of  faith  ;  to  their  best 
writers ;  and  to  their  uniform  proceedings. 

When  the  churches  began  to  assume  a  systematic  and  organized 
form,  they  were  all  arranged  by  ecclesiastical  writers  under  two 
grand  divisions — the  reformed  and  the  Lutheran.  The  reformed 
churches,  which  were  established  in  France,  Holland,  Switzer- 
land, Geneva,  and  in  some  parts  of  Germany,  from  the  beginning, 


TESTIMONY  OF  THE  REFORMERS.  149 

as  is  universally  known,  laid  aside  diocesan  bishops ;  and  have 
never,  at  any  period,  had  an  episcopal  government,  either  in  name 
or  in  fact.  That  these  churches  might  have  had  episcopal  ordina- 
tion, and  the  whole  system  of  prelacy,  continued  among  them,  if 
they  had  chosen  to  retain  them,  no  one  can  doubt  who  is  acquaint- 
ed with  their  history.  But  they  early  embraced  the  doctrine  of 
ministerial  parity,  which  had  been  so  generally  adopted  by 
preceding  witnesses  for  the  truth ;  and  erected  an  ecclesiastical 
organization  in  conformity  with  this  doctrine.  Accordingly,  the 
venerable  founders  of  those  churches,  having  been  themselves 
ordained  presbyters  by  Romish  bishops;  believing  that  the 
difference  between  these  two  classes  of  ministers  was  not  appointed 
by  Jesus  Christ  or  his  apostles,  but  invented  by  the  church  ;  and 
persuaded  that,  according  to  the  practice  of  the  primitive  church, 
presbyters  were  fully  invested  with  the  ordaining  power,  they 
proceeded  to  ordain  others,  and  thus  transmitted  the  ministerial 
succession  to  those  who  came  after  them. 

But  it  is  said,  that,  although  the  reformers  of  France,  Holland, 
Geneva,  Scotland,  &c.  thought  proper  to  organize  their  churches 
on  the  Presbyterian  principle  of  parity ;  yet  that  Calvin,  Beza,  and 
other  eminent  divines  of  great  authority  in  those  churches,  frequent- 
ly expressed  sentiments  very  favourable  to  diocesan  Episcopacy, 
and  spoke  with  great  respect  of  the  English  hierarchy.  It  is  not 
denied  that  those  illustrious  reformers,  on  a  variety  of  occasions, 
expressed  themselves  in  very  respectful  terms  of  the  church  of 
England,  as  it  stood  in  their  day.  But  whether  we  consider  the 
sentiments  which  they  expressed,  or  the  circumstances  under  which 
they  delivered  them,  no  use  can  be  made  of  this  fact  favourable  to 
the  cause  of  our  opponents.  The  truth  is,  the  English  reformers, 
prevented,  on  the  one  hand,  by  the  crown  and  line  papists,  from 
carrying  the  reformation  so  for  as  they  wished  ;  and  on  the  other, 
urged  by  the  Puritans,  to  remove  at  once,  all  abuses  out  of  the 
church,  wrote  to  the  reformers  at  Geneva,  whom  they  knew  to 
have  much  influence  in  England,  soliciting  their  aid,  in  quieting 
the  minds  of  the  Puritans,  and  in  persuading  them  to  remain  in  the 
bosom  of  the  church,  in  the  hope  of  a  more  complete  reformation 
afterwards.  Is  it  wonderful,  that,  at  a  crisis  of  this  kind,  Calvin 
and  Beza,  considering  the  church  of  England  as  struggling  with 
difficulties;  viewing  Cranmer  and  his  associates  as  eminently 


150  LETTER  VI. 

pious  men,  who  were  doing  the  best  they  could  in  existing  circum- 
stances ;  hoping  for  more  favourable  times  ;  and  not  regarding  the 
form  of  church  government  as  an  essential,  should  write  to  the 
English  reformers  in  a  manner  calculated  to  quiet  the  minds  of 
the  Puritans,  and  induce  them  to  remain  in  connexion  with  the 
national  church  ?  This  they  did.  But  in  all  their  communications, 
they  never  went  further  than  to  say,  that  they  considered  the 
hierarchy  of  England  as  a  judicious  and  respectable  human 
institution;  and  that  they  could,  without  any  violation  of  the 
dictates  of  conscience,  remain  in  communion  with  such  a  church. 
And  what  is  the  inference  from  this  ?  Could  not  thousands  of  the 
firmest  Presbyterians  on  earth,  under  similar  circumstances,  say  the 
same  ?  But  did  Calvin  or  Beza  ever  say,  even  in  their  most 
unguarded  moments,  that  they  considered  prelacy  as  an  institution 
of  Christ)  or  his  apostles  ?  Did  they  ever  express  a  preference  of 
this  form  of  government  to  the  Presbyterian  form?  Did  they,  in 
short,  ever  do  more  than  acknowledge  that  Episcopacy  might,  in 
some  cases,  be  useful  and  lawful?  But,  on  the  other  hand,  how 
much  these  same  reformers  have  said  against  prelacy,  and  in 
favour  of  ministerial  parity ;  how  strongly  they  have  asserted,  and 
how  clearly  they  have  proved,  the  former  to  be  a  human  invention, 
and  the  latter  to  have  the  sanction  of  apostolic  example;  and  how 
decidedly  they  speak  in  favour  of  Presbyterian  principles,  even  in 
some  of  their  most  complaisant  letters  to  the  English  reformers, 
our  opponents  take  care  not  to  state.*  Their  caution  is  politic. 
For  no  human  ingenuity  will  ever  be  able  to  refute  the  reasonings 
which  those  excellent  men  have  left  on  record  against  the  episcopal 
cause.t 

*  It  is  almost  incredible  how  far  the  declarations  of  Calvin  on  this  sub- 
ject, have  been  misunderstood  and  misrepresented.  Who  would  imagine, 
when  that  venerable  reformer,  in  his  Institutes,  represents  the  scriptures 
as  affording  a  warrant  for  three  classes  of  church  officers,  viz.  teaching 
elders,  ruling  elders,  and  deacons,  that  any  could  interpret  the  passage  as 
favouring  the  doctrine  of  three  orders  of  clergy  ? 

\  Beza,  in  his  celebrated  work  De  Triplici  Episcopatu,  declares  that 
there  are  three  kinds  of  Episcopacy  :  The  first,  instituted  by  Christ,  in 
which  all  pastors  are  equally  bishops.  This  he  calls  divine  episcopacy. 
The  second,  instituted  by  man,  in  which  certain  aged  and  venerable 
presbyters  are  presidents  or  moderators  for  life,  without  any  new  ordina- 


TESTIMONY  OF  THE  REFORMERS.  151 

With  respect  to  the  Luiheran  churches,  it  is  known  to  all  well 
informed  persons,  that  ihey  also,  from  the  beginning  rejected  dio- 
cesan episcopacy,  considered  as  an  institution  of  Christ,  and  have, 
to  the  present  time,  acted  on  this  principle,  acknowledging  but  one 
order  in  the  Christian  ministry.     I  know  that  attempts  have  fre- 
quently been  made  to  give  a  different  representation  of  this  matter. 
Whether  these  attempts  have  arisen  from  ignorance,  or  from  a  less 
excusable  source,  I  will  not  inquire ;  but  the  position  which  they 
aim  to  establish  is  unquestionably  groundless.     Luther,  the  great 
founder  of  the  church  which  bears  his  name,  gave  a   practical  de- 
claration of  his  opinion  on  this  subject,  by  one  decisive  fact,  which 
is,  that,  though  only  in  priest's  orders,  he  himself  undertook,  in 
1524,  a  few  years  after  commencing  the  work  of  reformation,  to 
ordain,  and  actually  performed  this  rite,  with  great   solemnity. 
His  coadjutors  and  followers,  though  of  no  higher  ecclesiastical  dig- 
nity than  himself,  did  the  same.     Could  more  decisive  testimony 
be  given  as  to  the  principles  of  the  first  Lutherans  on  this  subject. 
It  is  true,  Luther  and  the  leading  divines  of  his  denomination, 
differed  from  Calvin  and  his  associates,  with  respect  to  one  point 
in  church  government.     The  latter  totally  rejected  all  ministerial 
imparity.     Trie  former  supposed  that  a  system  embracing  some 
degree  of  imparity,  was,  in  general,  expedient;  and  accordingly, 
in  proceeding  to  organize  their  churches,  appointed superintendants, 
who  enjoyed  a  kind  of  pre-eminence,  and  were  vested  with  pecu- 
liar powers.     But  they  explicitly  acknowledged  this  office  to  be  a 
human,  and  not  a  divine  institution.    The  superintendants  in  ques- 
tion were  mere  presbyters,  and  received  no  new  ordination  in  con- 
sequence of  their  appointment  to  this  office.     The  opinion  of  their 
being  a  distinct  arid  superior  order  of  clergy,  was  formally  rejected. 
And  all  regular  Presbyterian  ordinations  were  recognized  by  the 
church  in  which  they  presided,  as  valid.     Nor  have  modern  Lu- 
therans apostatised  in  any  of  these  points  from  the  principles  of 
their  fathers.     In  all  the  Lutheran  churches  in  America,  and  in 
Europe,  to  the  south  of  Sweden,  there  are  no  bishops.     Their  su- 
perintendants, or  seniors,  have  no  other  ordination  than  that  of 

tion:  this  he  calls  human  episcopacy.  The  third,  in  which  prelates  are 
regarded  as  a  superior  order,  he  sytles  Satanical  episcopacy.  This 
statement  is  introduced  merely  to  show  with  how  little  propriety  Beza 
can  be  quoted  as  a  friend  to  prelacy. 


152  LETTER  VI. 

presbyters.  When  they  are  not  present,  other  presbyters  ordain 
without  a  scruple.  And  the  ordinations  practised  in  Presbyterian 
churches  they  acknowledge  to  be  as  valid  as  their  own;  and  accord- 
ingly receive  into  full  ministerial  standing,  those  who  have  been 
ordained  in  this  manner. 

The  testimony  of  Dr.  Mosheim,  the  celebrated  ecclesiastical  his- 
torian, who  was  himself  a  zealous  and  distinguished  Lutheran,  will 
doubtless  be  considered  as  conclusive  on  this  subject.  He  remarks, 
(Vol.  iv.  p.  287.)  that  "the  internal  government  of  the  Lutheran 
"  church  is  equaljy  removed  from  Episcopacy  on  the  one  hand,  and 
"  from  Presbyterianism  on  the  other ;  if  we  except  the  kingdoms 
"  of  Sweden  and  Denmark,  who  retain  the  form  of  ecclesiastical 
"  government  that  preceded  the  reformation,  purged,  indeed,  from 
"  the  superstition  and  abuses  that  rendered  it  so  odious.  This  con- 
"  stitution  of  the  Lutheran  hierarchy  will  not  seem  surprising,  when 
"  the  sentiments  of  that  people  with  regard  to  ecclesiastical  polity 
"  are  duly  considered.  On  the  one  hand,  they  are  persuaded  that 
"  there  is  no  law  of  divine  authority,  which  points  out  a  distinction 
"  between  the  ministers  of  the  gospel,  with  respect  to  rank,  dignity, 
"  or  prerogatives ;  and  therefore  they  recede  from  episcopacy* 
"  But,  on  the  other  hand,  they  are  of  opinion,  that  a  certain  subor. 
"  dinalion,  a  diversity  in  point  of  rank  and  privileges  among  the 
"  clergy,  are  not  only  highly  useful,  but  also  necessary  to  the  per- 
"  fection  of  church  communion,  by  connecting,  in  consequence  of 
"  a  mutual  dependence,  more  closely  together  the  members  of  the 
"  same  body  ;  and  thus  they  avoid  the  uniformity  of  the  Presby- 
"  terian  government.  They  are  not,  however,  agreed  with  respect 
"  to  the  extent  of  this  subordination  and  the  degrees  of  superiority 
"  and  precedence  that  ought  to  distinguish  their  doctors ;  for  in 
fi  some  places  this  is  regulated  with  much  more  regard  to  the 
"  ancient  rules  of  church  government,  than  is  discovered  in  others. 
'•  As  the  divine  law  is  silent  on  this  head,  different  opinions  may  be 
"  entertained,  and  different  forms  of  ecclesiastical  polity  adopted, 
"  without  a  breach  of  Christian  charity,  and  fraternal  union." 

In  perfect  correspondence  with  this  representation,  it  is  an 
undoubted' fact,  that  the  church  of  England,  and  those  of  the  same 
sect  in  this  country,  consider  the  Lutheran  church  as  being  desti- 
tute of  an  authorized  ministry,  and  her  ordinations  as  completely  a 
nullity  as  those  in  Presbyterian  churches.  You  have  seen,  in  our 


TESTIMONY  OF  THE  REFORMERS.  153 

own  city,  a  Lutheran  minister,  on  uniting  himself  with  the  Episco- 
pal church,  re-ordained,*  and  the  baptism  of  his  children,  which 
had  been  performed  by  the  venerable  senior  of  the  Lutheran  church 
in  this  State,  pronounced  invalid,  and  performed  a  second  time  by 
episcopal  clergyman.  If  the  Lutherans  are  Episcopalians  in  the 
same  sense  with  the  church  of  England,  why  treat  their  church 
with  this  pointed  disrespect  ?  If  they  have  no  claim  to  this  title, 
why,  for  the  purpose  of  endeavouring  to  support  by  the  weight  of 
numbers  an  unscriptural  principle,  is  the  contrary  insinuated  ? 

But  although  the  Lutherans  in  America  and  in  the  south  of 
Europe  are  not  episcopal ;  perhaps  it  will  be  contended,  that  this 
form  obtains  among  the  Lutherans  of  Sweden.  This  plea,  however^ 
like  the  former,  is  altogether  destitute  of  solidity.  It  is  readily 
granted  that  the  Lutheran  churches  in  that  kingdom  have  officers 
whom  they  style  bishops  ;  but  when  we  examine  the  history  and  the 
principles  of  those  churches  with  respect  to  their  clergy,  these  bish- 
ops will  be  found  to  have  no  other  character,  according  to  the 
doctrine  of  the  church  of  England,  than  that  of  mere  presbyters. 
For,  in  ihejlrst  place,  all  ecclesiastical  historians  agree,  that  when 
the  reformation  was  introduced  into  Sweden,  the  first  ministers  who 
undertook  to  ordain  were  only  presbyters.  Their  ministerial  suc- 
cession, of  course,  flowing  through  such  a  channel,  cannot  include 
any  ecclesiastical  dignity  higher  than  that  of  presbyter.  Further  ;  in 
Swedish  churches  it  is  not  only  certain  that  presbyters,  in  the  absence 
of  those  who  are  styled  bishops,  ordain  common  ministers,  without 
a  scruple ;  but  it  is  equally  certain,  that  in  the  ordination  of  a  bishop, 
if  the  other  bishops  happen  to  be  absent,  the  more  grave  and  aged 
of  the  ordinary  pastors  supply  their  place,  and  are  considered  as 
fully  invested  with  the  ordaining  power.  Finally ;  the  Swedish 
churches  explicitly  renounce  all  claim  of  divine  right  for  their 
ecclesiastical  government.  They  acknowledge  that  the  Scriptures 
contain  no  warrant  for  more  than  one  order  of  gospel  ministers  ;t 
that  their  system  rests  on  no  other  ground  than  human  expediency; 
and  that  an  adherence  to  it  is  by  no  means  necessary  either  to  the 
validity  or  regularity  of  Christian  ordinances. 

*  The  Rev.  George  Sirebeck,  late  pastor  of  Zion  church,  in  Mott-street; 
now  minister  of  St.  Stephen's  Church,  in  the  Bowery. 
|  The  Swedish  churches  wholly  discard  deaconsas  an  order  of  clergy. 
U 


154  LETTER  VI. 

Several  of  the  foregoing  remarks  apply  to  the  United  Brethren 
or  Moravians.  They,  indeed,  have  Bishops  in  their  churches. 
But  they  explicitly  renounce  all  claim  of  Divine  right  for  their 
system.  Of  course,  they  utterly  deny  the  necessity  of  Episcopal 
ordination  in  order  to  the  institution  of  a  valid  ministry.  And,  in 
full  consistency  with  this  belief,  they  freely  admit  into  their  church, 
clergymen  who  have  received  no  other  than  Presbyterian  ordina- 
tion, without  requiring  them  to  be  re-ordained.  They  have,  and 
have  long  had,  a  large  number  of  this  class  actually  incorporated 
with  the  rest  of  their  clergy,  and  standing  on  a  perfect  level  with 
those  who  have  been  ordained  by  their  bishops.* 

Finally  ;  in  order  to  swell  the  list  of  episcopal  churches  as 
much  as  possible,  the  Methodist  church  is  frequently  represented 
as  such  ;  but  how  justly,  a  little  examination  will  evince.  Mr. 
Wesley,  the  venerable  founder  of  that  church,  when  he  undertook, 
a  number  of  years  ago,  to  digest  a  plan  for  its  external  organization, 
especially  in  the  United  States,  formally  avowed  himself  to  be  of 
.the  opinion,  with  Lord  Chancellor  King,  that  Bishop  and  Preby- 
ter,  in  the  primitive  church,  were  the  same.  And  in  perfect  con- 
formity with  this  belief,  he  himself,  being  only  a  presbyter  in  the 
church  of  England^  united  with  other  presbyters  in  ordaining  mi- 
nisters for  his  new  church.  These  presbyters  ordained  the  first 
Methodist  Bishops,  from  whom  all  succeeding  ordinations  in 
that  body  have  been  derived.  So  that  in  the  Methodist  church, 
there  is  no  other,  strictly  speaking,  than  Presbyterian  ordination 
to  the  present  hour.  In  consistency  with  this  acknowledged  fact, 
they  receive,  without  re-ordination,  ministers  who  have  been  or- 
dained by  Presbyters  alone  in  other  churches.  They  practise 
their  own  ordination,  which  is  acknowledged  by  themselves  to  be  no 
other  than  Presbyterian,  in  Scotland,  where  they  are  surrounded 
with  Episcopal  Bishops,  whose  ordination  might  be  obtained,  if  it 
were  deemed  necessary.  In  a  word,  though,  for  the  purposes'  of 
government,  they  have  ministers  of  different  titles  and  ranks;  yet 
they  neither  possess,  nor  recognize  any  higher  power  than  that  of 
Presbyters.  And,  what  confirms  the  representation  I  have  given 
is,  that  when  Methodist  ministers  consider  it  as  their  duty  to  enter 

*  See^  Concise  Historical  Account  of  the  Constitution  of  the  Unitas  Fra- 
trum.  8vo.  Lond.  1775. 


TESTIMONY  OF  THE  REFORMERS.  155 

the  Episcopal  church,  they  are  always  laid  under  the  necessity  of 
practically  renouncing  their  former  orders,  and  submitting  to  be 
re-ordained. 

If  I  mistake  not,  I  have  now  demonstrated,  lhat  the  whole  body 
of  the  reformers,  with  scarcely  any  exceptions,  agreed  in  maintain- 
ing that  ministerial  parity  was  the  doctrine  of  scripture,  and  of  the 
primitive  church  :  That  all  the  reformed  churches,  excepting  that 
of  England,  were  organized  on  this  principle  ;  and  that  even  those 
great  men  who  finally  settled  her  government  and  worship,  did  not 
consider  prelacy  as  founded  on  divine  appointment,  but  only  as 
resting  on  the  basis  of  expediency.  In  short,  there  is  complete 
evidence,  that  the  church  of  England  stands  alone  in  making 
bishops  an  order  of  clergy  superior  to  presbyters ;  nay,  that 
every  other  protestant  church  on  earth,  has  formally  disclaimed 
the  divine  right  of  diocesan  Episcopacy,  and  pronounced  it  to  be 
a  mere  human  invention. 

Now  is  it  credible,  my  brethren,  that  a  body  of  such  men  as  the 
early  reformers  ;  men  who  to  great  learning,  added  th*e  most  exalt- 
ed piety,  zeal,  and  devotedness  to  the  truth ;  men  who  counted  not 
their  lives  dear  to  them  that  they  might  maintain  what  appeared 
to  them  the  purity  of  faith  and  order  in  the  church ;  is  it  credible 
ibatsuch  men,  living  in  different  countries,  embarrassed  with 
different  prejudices,  all  educated  under  the  system  of  diocesan 
bishops,  and  all  surrounded  with  ministers  and  people  still  warmly 
attached  to  this  system  :  Is  it  credible,  I  say,  that  such  men,  thus 
situated,  should,  when  left  free  to  examine  the  scriptures  and  the 
early  fathers  on  this  subject,  with  almost  perfect  unanimity,  agree 
in  pronouncing  prelacy  to  be  a  human  invention,  and  ministerial 
parity  to  be  the  doctrine  of  scripture,  if  the  testimony  in  favour  of 
this  opinion  had  not  been  perfectly  clear  and  conclusive  ?  It  is  not 
credible.  We  may  suppose  Calvin  and  Beza  to  have  embraced 
their  opinions  on  this  subject  from  prejudice,  arising  out  of  their 
situation;  but  that  Luther,  Melancthon,  and  all  the  leading 
reformers  on  the  continent  of  Europe,  differently  situated,  and 
with  different  views  on  other  points,  should  embrace  the  same 
opinion  ;  that  Cranmer,  Grindal,  and  other  prelates  in  Britain, 
though  partaking  in  the  highest  honours  of  an  episcopal  system, 
should  entirely  concur  in  that  opinion  ;  that  all  this  illustrious  body 
of  men,  scattered  through  the  whole  protestant  world,  should  agree 


156  LETTER  VI. 

in  declaring  ministerial  parity  to  be  the  doctrine  of  scripture  and 
of  the  primitive  church ;  and  all  this  from  mere  prejudice,  in 
direct  opposition  to  scripture,  and  early  history,  is  one  of  the  most 
incredible  suppositions  that  can  be  formed  by  the  human  mind. 

I  repeat  again,  the  question  before  us  is  not  to  be  decided  by 
human  opinion,  or  by  the  number  or  respectability  of  the  advocates 
which  appear  on  either  side.  We  are  not  to  be  governed  by  the 
judgment  of  reformers,  or  by  the  practice  of  the  churches  which 
they  planted.  But  so  far  as  these  considerations  have  any  weight, 
they  are  clearly  and  unquestionably  on  the  side  of  Presbyterian 
parity. 


(     157     ) 


LETTER  VH. 

CONCESSIONS  OF  EMINENT  EPISCOPALIANS. 

CHRISTIAN  BRETHREN, 

THE  concessions  of  opponents  always  carry  with  them  peculiar 
weight.  The  opinions  of  Presbyterians,  in  this  controversy,  like 
the  testimony  of  all  men  in  their  own  favour,  will  of  course  be 
received  with  suspicion  and  allowance.  But  when  decided  and 
zealous  Episcopalians ;  men  who  stand  high  as  the  defenders  and 
the  ornaments  of  Episcopacy;  men  whose  prejudice  and  interest 
were  all  enlisted  in  the  support  of  the  episcopal  system  ;  when 
these  are  found  to  have  conceded  the  main  points  in  this  controver- 
sy, they  give  us  advantages  of  the  most  decisive  kind.  Some 
instances  of  this  sort,  I  shall  now  proceed  to  state. 

When  I  exhibit  episcopal  divines  as  making  concessions  in 
favour  of  our  doctrine,  none  certainly  will  understand  me  as  mean 
ing  to  assert,  that  they  were  Presbyterians  in  principle.  So  far 
from  this,  the  chief  value  of  their  concessions  consists  in  being 
made  by  decided  friends  of  Episcopacy.  Neither  will  you  under- 
stand me  to  assert,  that  none  of  these  writers  say  any  thing,  in 
other  parts  of  their  works,  inconsistent  with  these  concessions. 
Few  men  who  write  and  publish  much,  are  at  all  times  so  guarded 
as  never  to  be  inconsistent  with  themselves.  It  is  enough  for  me 
to  know  what  language  they  employed,  when  they  undertook 
professedly  to  state  their  opinions  on  the  subject  before  us,  and 
when  they  were  called  upon  by  every  motive  to  write  with  caution 
and  precision.  You  will  likewise  find  most  of  these  writers, 
differing  among  themselves ;  some  taking  higher  ground,  and 
others  lower.  For  this  you  are  doubtless  prepared,  after  being 
informed  that  there  are  three  classes  of  Episcopalians,  as  stated  in 
my  first  letter. 

Some  of  the  concessions  which  might  with  propriety  be  here 
introduced,  have  been  already  exhibited  in  various  parts  of  the 
foregoing  letters.  You  have  been  told  that  Mr.  Dodwell  frankly 


158  LETTER  VII. 

acknowledges  that  bishops,  as  an  order  superior  to  presbyters,  are 
not  to  be  found  in  the  New  Testament ;  that  such  an  order  had  no 
existence  till  the  beginning  of  the  second  century  ;  that  presbyters 
were  the  highest  ecclesiastical  officers  left  in  commission  by  the 
apostles  5    and,  of  course,  that  the  first   diocesan   bishops  were 
ordained  by  presbyters.     On  the  other  hand,  Dr.  Hammond,  per- 
haps  the  ablest  advocate  of  prelacy  that   ever   lived,   warmly 
contends,  that  in  the  days  of  the  apostles  there  were  none  but 
bishops  ;  the  second  grade  of  ministers,  now  styled  presbyters,  not 
having  been  appointed  till  after  the  close  of  the  canon  of  scripture. 
Now,  if  neither  of  these  great  men  could  find  both  bishops  and 
presbyters,  as  different  orders,  in  the  New  Testament  5  however 
ingeniously  they  endeavour  to    extricate  themselves    from    the 
difficulty,  it  will  amount,  in  the  opinion  of  all  the  impartial,  to  a 
fundamental  concession.     In  like  manner  you  have  seen,  that  the 
arguments  drawn  from  the  episcopal   character  of  Timothy  and 
Titus,  from  the  model  of  the  Jewish  Priesthood,  and  from   the 
Angels  of  the  Asiatic  churches,  have  been  formally  abandoned, 
and  pronounced  to  be  of  no  value,  by  some  of  the  ablest  champions 
of  Episcopacy.     The  same  might  be  proved  with  respect  to  all  the 
arguments  which  are  derived  from    scripture  in  support  of  the 
episcopal   cause.      But  let  us  pass  on  to    some  more  general 
concessions. 

The  papists,  before  as  well  as  since  the  reformation,  have  been 
the  warmest  advocates  for  prelacy,  that  the  church  ever  knew. 
Yet  it  would  be  easy  to  show,  by  a  series  of  quotations,  that  many 
of  the  most  learned  men  of  that  denomination,  of  different  periods 
and  nations,  have  held,  and  explicitly  taught,  that  bishops  and 
presbyters  were  the  same  in  the  primitive  church  ;  and  that  the 
difference  between  them,  though  deemed  both  useful  and  necessary, 
is  only  a  human  institution.  But  instead  of  a  long  list  of  autho- 
rities to  establish  this  point,  I  shall  content  myself  with  producing 
four,  the  first  two  from  Great  Britain,  and  the  others  from  the 
continent  of  Europe. 

The  judgment  of  the  church  of  England  on  this  subject,  in  the 
times  of  popery,  we  have  in  the  canons  of  Elfrick,  in  the  year  990, 
to  Bishop  Wolfin,  in  which  bishops  and  presbyters  are  declared  to 
be  of  the  same  order.  To  the  same  amount  is  the  judgment  of 
Anselme,  archbishop  of  Canterbury,  who  died  about  the  year  1109, 


CONCESSIONS  OF  EPISCOPALIANS.  159 

and  who  was  perhaps  the  most  learned  man  of  the  age  in  which  he 
lived.  He  explicitly  tells  us,  that,  «  by  the  apostolic  institution, 
all  presbyters  are  bishops."  See  his  Commentary  on  Titus  and 
Philip. 

In  the  canon  law  we  find  the  following  decisive  declaration 
"  Bishop  and  presbyter  were  the  same  in  the  primitive  church ; 
"  presbyter  being  the  name  of  the  person's  age,  and  bishop  of  his 
"  office.  But  there  being  many  of  these  in  every  church,  they 
"  determined  among  themselves,  for  the  preventing  of  schism,  that 
"  one  should  be  elected  by  themselves  to  be  set  over  the  rest ;  and 
"  the  person  so  elected  was  called  bishop,  for  distinction  sake. 
"  The  rest  were  called  presbyters  ;  and  in  process  of  time,  their 
"  reverence  for  these  titular  bishops  so  increased,  that  they  began  to 
"  obey  them  as  children  do  a  father."  Just.  Leg.  Can.  I.  21. 

Cassander,  a  learned  catholic  divine,  who  flourished  in  the  16th 
century,  in  his  book  of  Consultations,  Art.  14.  has  the  following 
passage :  "  Whether  Episcopacy  is  to  be  accounted  an  ecclesiasti- 
"  cal  order,  distinct  from  presbytery,  is  a  question  much  debated 
"  between  theologues  and  canonists.  But  in  this  one  particular, 
"  all  parties  agree.  That  in  the  apostles' days  there  was  no 
u  difference  between  a  bishop  and  a  presbyter  ;  but  afterwards, 
"for  the  avoiding  of  schism,  the  bishop  was  placed  before  the 
"presbyter,  to  whom  the  power  of  ordination  was  granted,  that  so 
"  peace  might  be  continued  in  the  church." 

It  has  been  observed,  that  all  the  first  reformers  of  the  church  of 
England,  freely  acknowledged  bishops  and  presbyters  to  have 
been  the  same  in  the  apostolic  age ;  and  only  defended  diocesan 
Episcopacy  as  a  wise  human  appointment.  It  was  asserted,  on 
high  episcopal  authority,  in  the  preceding  letter,  that  Dr.  Bancroft, 
then  chaplain  to  Archbishop  Whitgift,  was  the  Jirst  protestant 
divine  in  England,  who  attempted  to  place  Episcopacy  on  the 
foundation  of  divine  right.  In  1588,  in  a  sermon  delivered  on  a 
public  occasion,  he  undertook  to  maintain,  "  ihat  the  bishops  of 
"  England  were  a  distinct  order  from  priests,  and  had  superiority 
"  over  them  by  divine  right,  and  directly  from  God  ;  and  that  the 
"  denial  of  it  was  heresy."  This  sermon  gave  great  offence  to 
many  of  the  clergy  and  laity.  Among  others,  Sir  Francis  Knotty s, 
much  dissatisfied  with  the  doctrine  which  it  contained,  wrote  to 
Dr.  Raignolds,  professor  of  divinity  in  the  University  of  Oocford, 


160  LETTER  VII. 

for  his  opinion  on  the  subject.  That  learned  professor,  who  is  said 
to  have  been  the  "  oracle  of  the  university  in  his  day,"*  returned 
an  answer,  which,  among  other  things,  contains  the  following 
passages. 

"  Of  the  two  opinions  which  your  honour  mentions  in  the  ser- 
"  mon  of  Dr.  Bancroft,  the  first  is  that  which  asserts  the  superiori- 
"  ty  which  the  prelates  among  us  have  over  the  clergy,  to  be  a 
"  divine  institution.  He  does  not,  indeed,  assert  this  in  express 
"  terms,  but  he  does  it  by  necessary  consequence,  in  which  he 
"  affirms  the  opinion  of  those  that  oppose  that  superiority  to  be  an 
"  heresy;  in  which,  in  my  judgment,  he  has  committed  an  over- 
"  sight;  and  I  believe  he  himself  will  acknowledge  it,  if  duly 
"  admonished  concerning  it.  All  that  have  laboured  in  reforming 
"  the  church,  for  500  years  past,  have  taught  that  all  pastors, 
"  be  they  entitled  bishops  or  priests,  have  equal  authority  and 
"  power  by  God's  Word  ;  as  first  the  Waldenses,  next  Marsilius 
"  Petavinus,  then  Wickliffe  and  his  disciples ;  afterwards  Huss 
"  and  the  Hussites ;  and  last  of  all  Luther,  Calvin,  JBrentius 
"  Bullinger,  and  Musculus.  Among  ourselves  we  have  bishops, 
"  the  Queen's  prof  essors  of  divinity  in  our  universities ;  and  other 
"  learned  men,  as  Bradford,  Lambert,  Jewel,  Pilkington,  Hum- 
"phreys,  Fulke,  who  all  agree  in  this  matter  ;  and  so  do  all  divines 
"  beyond  sea  that  I  ever  read,  and  doubtless  many  more  whom  I 
"  never  read.  But  what  do  I  speak  of  particular  persons  ?  It  is 
"  the  common  judgment  of  the  reformed  Churches  of  Helvetia, 
<l  Savoy,  France,  Scotland,  Germany,  Hungary,  Poland,  the 
"  Low-Countries,  and  our  own,  (the  church  of  England).  Where- 
"  fore,  since  Dr.  Bancroft  will  certainly  never  pretend  that  an 
"  heresy,  condemned  by  the  consent  of  the  whole  church  in  its 
"  most  flourishing  times,  was  yet  accounted  a  sound  and  Christian 
u  doctrine  by  all  these  I  have  mentioned,  I  hope  he  will  acknow- 
"  ledge  that  he  was  mistaken*  when  he  asserted  the  superiority 

*  Professor  Raignolds  was  acknowledged  by  all  his  contemporaries  to 
be  a  prodigy  of  learning.  Bishop  Hall  used  to  say,  that  his  memory  and 
reading  were  near  a  miracle.  He  was  particularly  conversant  with  the 
fathers  and  early  historians;  was  a  critic  in  the  languages;  was  celebrated 
for  his  wit;  and  so  eminent  for  piety  and  sanctity  of  life,  that  Cra- 
kenthorp  said  of  him,  that  "  to  name  Raignolds  was  to  commend  virtue 
itself." 


CONCESSIONS  OF  EPISCOPALIANS.  161 

ef  which  bishops  have  among  us  over  the  clergy,  to  be  God's  own 
*'  ordinance."*  Archbishop  Whitgift,  referring  to  the  great 
attention  which  Bancroft's  sermon  had  excited,  observed,  that  it 
"  had  done  good  ;"  but  added,  that  with  respect  to  the  offensive 
doctrine  which  it  contained,  he  "  rather  wished,  than  believed  it  to 
be  true." 

The  same  Archbishop  Wliitgift,  in  his  book  against  Cartwright, 
has  the  following  full  and  explicit  declarations  :  Having  distin- 
guished between  those  things  which  are  so  necessary,  that  without 
them  we  cannot  be  saved ;  and  such  as  are  so  necessary,  that 
without  them  we  cannot  so  we/Zand  conveniently  be  saved,  he 
adds,  "  I  confess,  that  in  a  church  collected  together  in  one  place, 
"  and  at  liberty,  government  is  necessary  with  the  second  kind  of 
"  necessity;  but  that  any  kind  of  government  is  so  necessary  that 
"  without  it  the  church  cannot  be  saved,  or  that  it  may  not  be 
"  altered  into  some  other  kind,  thought  to  be  more  expedient,  I 
"  utterly  deny,  and  the  reasons  that  move  me  so  to  do,  be  these: 
"  the  first  is,  because  I  find  no  one  certain  and  perfect  kind  of 
"government  prescribed  or  commanded  in  the  scriptures,  to  the 
"  church  of  Christ ;  which,  no  doubt,  should  have  been  done,  if  it 
"  had  been  a  matter  necessary  to  the  salvation  of  the  church. 
"  There  is  no  certain  kind  of  government  or  discipline  prescribed 
"  to  the  church  ;  but  the  same  may  be  altered,  as  the  profit  of  the 
"  churches  requires.— I  do  deny  that  the  scriptures  do  set  down 
"  any  one  certain  kind  of  government  in  the  church  to  be  perpetual 
"  for  all  limes,  places,  and  persons,  without  alteration. — It  is  well 
"  known  that  the  manner  and  form  of  government  used  in  the 
"  apostles'  time,  and  expressed  in  the  scriptures,  neither  is  now, 
"  nor  can,  nor  ought  to  be  observed,  either  touching  the  persons 
"  or  the  functions*  We  see  manifestly,  that,  in  sundry  points, 

*  See  the  letter  at  large  in  Boyse  on  Episcopacy,  p.  13 — 19. 

\  It  has  been  said  that  Archbishop  Whitgift,  in  this  passage,  merely 
meant  to  say  that  all  the  details  of  ecclesiastical  discipline  are  not  laid  down 
in  scripture,  nor  to  be  considered  as  of  divine  right.  But  he  utterly 
precludes  this  construction,  by  declaring1  that  he  considers  no  form  of 
government  as  of  unalterable  divine  appointment,  either  with  respect  to 
persona  or  functions.  He  could  scarcely  have  employed  language  to 
express  the  opinion  which  we  ascribe  to  him,  more  perspicuously  or 
decisively. 

X 


162  LETTER  VL1. 

"  the  government  of  the  church  used  in  the  apostles'  time,  is,  and 
"  hath  been  of  necessity,  altered;  and  that  it  neither  may  nor  can 
"  be  revoked.  Whereby  it  is  plain,  that  any  one  kind  of  external 
"  government  perpetually  to  be  observed,  is  no  where  in  the 
"  scripture  prescribed  to  the  church,  but  the  charge  thereof  is  left 
"  to  the  magistrate,  so  that  nothing  be  done  contrary  to  the  word 
"  of  God.  This  is  the  opinion  of  the  best  writers  ;  neither  do  I 
"  know  any  learned  man  of  a  contrary  judgment " 

Dr.  Willet,  a  distinguished  divine  of  the  church  of  England,  in 
the  reign  of  Elizabeth,  in  his  Synopsis  Papismi,  a  large  and 
learned  work,  dedicated  to  that  Queen,  undertakes  professedly  to 
deliver  the  opinion  of  his  Church  on  the  subject  before  us.  Out 
of  much  which  might  be  quoted,  the  following  passages  are  suf- 
ficient for  our  purpose :  "  Every  godly  and  faithful  bishop  is  a 
"  successor  of  the  apostles.  We  deny  it  not  5  and  so  are  all 
"  faithful  and  godly  pastors  and  ministers.  For  in  respect  of  their 
"  extraordinary  calling,  miraculous  gifts,  and  apostleship,  the 
"  apostles  have  properly  no  successors;  as  Mr.  Bembridge,  the 
"  martyr  saith,  that  he  believed  not  bishops  to  be  the  successors  of 
"the  apostles,  for  that  they  be  not  called  as  they  were,  nor  have 
"that  grace.  That,  therefore,  which  the  apostles  were  especially 
"  appointed  unto,  is  the  thing  wherein  the  apostles  were  properly 
"  succeeded  ;  but  that  was  the  preaching  of  the  gospel :  as  St.  Paul 
"  saith,  he  was  sent  to  preach,  not  to  baptize.  The  promise  of  suc- 
"  cession,  we  see,  is  in  the  preaching  of  the  word,  which  appertain- 
tl  eth  as  well  to  other  pastors  and  ministers  as  to  bishops."  Again  ; 
"  seeing  in  the  apostles'  time  episcopus  and  presbyter,  a  bishop 
u  and  a  priest,  were  neither  in  name  nor  office  distinguished  ;  it 
'*  followeth,  then,  that  either  the  apostles  assigned  no  succession 
"  while  they  lived,  neither  appointed  their  successors ;  or  that 
"  indifferently,  all  faithful  pastors  and  preachers  of  the  apostolic 
"  faith  are  the  apostles'  successors."  Controv.  v.  Quest.  3.  p. 
232.  "Of  the  difference  between  bishops  and  priests,  there  are 
"  three  opinions :  the  Jirst,  of  Aerius,  who  did  hold  that  all 
"  ministers  should  be  equal ;  and  that  a  bishop  was  not,  neither 
"  ought  to  be  superior  to  a  priest.  The  second  opinion  is  the 
"  other  extreme  of  the  papists,  who  would  have  not  only  a 
"  difference,  but  a  princely  pre-eminence  of  their  bishops  over  the 
u  clergy,  and  that  by  the  word  of  God.  And  they  urge  it  to  be  so 


CONCESSIONS  OF  EPISCOPALIANS.  163 

"  necessary,  that  they  are  no  true  churches  which  receive  not  their 
"  pontifical  hierarchy.  The  third  opinion  is  between  both,  that 
"  although  this  distinction  of  bishops  and  priests,  as  it  is  now 
u  received,  cannot  be  proved  out  of  scripture  ;  yet  it  is  very  neces- 
"  sary,  for  the  policy  of  the  church,  to  avoid  schisms,  and  to 
"  preserve  it  in  unity.  Of  this  judgment,  Bishop  Jewel  against 
"  Harding,  showeth  both  Chrysostom,  Ambrose,  and  Jerome,  to 
"  have  been.  Jerome  thus  writeth, f  the  apostle  teaches  evidently 
"  that  bishops  and  priests  were  the  same  ;  but  that  one  was  after- 
"  wards  chosen  to  be  set  over  the  rest  as  a  remedy  against  schism.' 
"  To  this  opinion  of  St.  Jerome,  subscribeth  bishop  Jewel,  and  ano- 
"  ther  most  reverend  prelate  of  our  church,  Archbishop  Whitgift.*' 
p.  273.  Dr.  Willet  also  expressly  renounces  the  argument  drawn 
by  many  Episcopalians  from  the  Jewish  priesthood.  In  answer 
to  a  celebrated  popish  writer,  who  had,  with  great  confidence, 
adduced  this  argument,  to  support  the  authority  of  bishops,  as  an 
order  superior  to  presbyters,  he  observes  :  First,  "  the  highpriest 
"  under  the  law  was  a  figure  of  Christ,  who  is  the  high  priest  and 
"  chief  Shepherd  of  the  New  Testament :  and  therefore  this  type, 
"  being  fulfilled  in  Christ,  cannot  properly  be  applied  to  the  exter- 
"  nal  hierarchy  of  the  church.  Secondly,  if  every  bishop  be  this 
"  high  priest,  then  have  you  lost  one  of  your  best  arguments  for 
"  the  Pope,  whom  you  would  have  to  be  the  high  priest  in  the 
"  church."*  This  champion  of  the  church  of  England  further 
concedes  :  "  That  it  may  be  doubted  whether  Timothy  were 
"  so  ordained  by  the  apostle  bishop  of  Ephesus,  as  a  bishop 
"  is  now  set  over  his  diocese ;  for  then  the  apostle  would  never 
"have  called  him  so  often  from  his  charge,  sending  him  to 
«  the  Corinthians,  to  the  Thessalonians,  and  to  other  churches 
"beside.  It  is  most  likely  that  Timothy  had  the  place  and  calling 
"of  an  Evangelist"  Again;  "  Seeing  that  Timothy  was  ordained 
"  by  the  authority  of  the  eldership,  how  could  he  be  a  bishop  strict- 
"lyand  precisely  taken,  being  ordained  by  presbyters'?"  p.  273. 
Dr.  Willet  also  formally  gives  up  the  claim  that  diocesan  bishops 

*  It  will  be  observed,  that  this  zealous  Episcopalian  not  only  rejects 
the  argument  in  favour  of  prelacy,  drawn  from  the  model  of  the  Jewish 
Priesthood,  but  also  declares  it  to  be  a.  popish  argument,  and  of  no  value 
excepting  on  popish  principles. 


164  LETTER  VII. 

are  peculiarly  the  successors  of  the  apostles;  explicitly  conceding 
that  all  who  preach  the  gospel,  and  administer  sacraments,  are 
equally  entitled  to  this  honour.  And,  to  place  his  opinion  beyond 
all  doubt,  he  observes,  "  Although  it  cannot  be  denied  but  that  the 
t(  government  of  bishops  is  very  profitable  for  the  preserving  of 
"  unity ;  yet  we  dare  not  condemn  the  churches  of  Geneva, 
"  Helvetia,  Germany,  Scotland,  that  have  received  another  form 
a  of  ecclesiastical  government';  as  the  papists  proudly  affirm  all 
"  churches  which  have  not  such  bishops  as  theirs  are,  to  be  no 
"  true  churches.  But  so  do  not  our  bishops  and  archbishops, 
"  which  is  a  notable  difference  between  the  bishops  of  the  popish 
"  church,  and  of  the  reformed  churches.  Wherefore,  as  we  con- 
(i  demn  not  those  reformed  churches  which  have  retained  another 
"  form  of  ecclesiastical  government ;  so  neither  are  they  to  censure 
"  our  church  for  holding  still  the  ancient  regimen  of  bishops, 
"  purged  from  the  ambitious  and  superstitious  inventions  of  the 
"  popish  prelacy."  p.  276. 

Bishop  Bilson,  in  his  work  against  Seminaries,  lib.  I.  p.  318, 
delivers  it  as  his  opinion,  and  confirms  it  by  quotations  from  Jerome, 
that  "  the  church  was  at  first  governed  by  the  common  council  of 
"  presbyters  ;  that  therefore  bishops  must  understand  that  they  are 
"  greater  than  presbyters,  rather  by  custom  than  the  Lord's  appoint- 
"  ment ;  and  that  bishops  came  in  after  the  Apostle's  time." 

Dr.  Holland,  the  King's  professor  of  divinity  in  the  University 
of  Oxford,  at  a  public  academical  exercise,  in  the  year  1608,  in 
answer  to  a  question  formally  and  solemnly  proposed — An  episco- 
patus  sit  ordo  distinctus  apresbyte.ratu,  eoque  superiorjure  divino? 
i.  e.  Whether  the  office  of  bishop  be  different  from  that  of  pres- 
byter, and  superior  to  it,  by  divine  right,  declared  that  "  to  affirm 
"  that  there  is  such  a  difference  and  superiority,  by  divine  right? 
"  is  most  false,  contrary  to  Scripture,  to  the  fathers,  to  the  doctrine 
"  of  the  church  of  England,  yea  to  the  very  schoolmen  themselves." 

Bishop  Morton,'m  his  Catholic  Apology,  addressed  to  the  papists, 
lib.  I.  tells  them  "  that  the  powers  of  order  and  jurisdiction,  which 
"  they  ascribe  to  bishops,  doth  by  divine  right  belong  to  all  other 
"  presbyters  ;  and  that  to  ordain  is  their  ancient  right."  He  further 
asserts,  that  Jerome  does  not  represent  the  difference  between  bishop 
and  presbyter  as  of  divine  institution.  He  assents  to  the  opinion  of 
Medina  the  Jesuit,  and  declares  that  there  was  no  substantial 


CONCESSIONS  OF  EPISCOPALIANS.  165 

difference  on  the  subject  of  episcopacy  between  Jerome  and  Aerius. 
He  avers,  further,  that  not  only  all  the  protestants,  but  also  all  the 
primitive  doctors  were  of  Jerome's  mind.  And,  finally,  he  con- 
cludes, that  according  to  the  harmonious  consent  of  all  men  in  the 
apostolic  age,  there  was  no  difference  between  bishop  and  presbyter ; 
but  that  this  difference  was  afterwards  introduced  for  the  removal 
of  schism, 

Bishop  Jewel,  one  of  the  most  illustrious  advocates  for  diocesan 
episcopacy,  in|the  Defence  of  his  Apology  for  the  Church  of  England 
against  Harding,  p.  248,  has  the  following  remarkable  passage. 
11  But  what  meant  M.  Harding  to  come  in  herewith  the  difference 
"  between  priests  and  bishops  ?     Thinketh  he  that  priests  and 
*'  bishops  hold  only  by  tradition  ?  Or  is  it  so  horrible  an  heresy  as 
"  he  maketh  it,  to  say,  that  by  the  Scriptures  of  God,  a  bishop  and 
"  a  priest  are  all  one  ?     Or  knoweth  he  how  far,  and  to  whom  he 
"  reacheth  the   name  of  an   heretic  ?  Verily   Chrysostom  saith, 
"  Inter  episcopum,  el  presby  terum  interest  fere  nihil.  \.  e. l  between 
"  a  bishop  and  a  priest  there  is,  in  a  manner,  no  difference.'  St. 
u  Jerome   saith,  somewhat  in  rougher   sort,  Audio,  quendam  in 
l(  tantam  eripuisse  vecordiam,  ut  diaconos presby  tens,  idest,epis- 
{t  copis  ante  ferret :  cum  Apostolus  perspicue  doceat,  eosdem  esse 
"  presbyteros  quos  episcopos.  i.  e.  CI  hear  say,  there  is  one  become 
"  so  peevish,  that  he  setteth  deacons  before  priests,  that  is  to  say, 
"  bishops  ;  whereas  the  Apostle  plainly  teacheth  us,  that  priests 
"  and  bishops  be  all  one.'      St.  Augustine  also  saith,  Quid  est 
(t  episcopus  nisi  primus  presbyter,  hoc  est  summus  sacerdos  ?  \.  e. 
"  'What  is  a  bishop,  but  the  first  priest,  that  is  to  say,  the  highest 
"  priest  ?'  So  saith  St.  Ambrose,  episcopi  et  presby  teriunaordina- 
"  tio  est ;  uterque,  enim,  sacerdos  est,  sed  episcopus  primus  est. 
"  i.  e.  There  is  but  one  consecration  of  priest  and  bishop  ;  for  both 
"  of  them  are  priests,  but  the  bishop  is  the  first.     All  these,  and 
"  other   more  holy  fathers,  together  with  St.  Paul,  the  Apostle, 
"  for  thus  saying,  by  M.  Harding's  advice,  must  be  holden  for 
"  heretics."* 

*  It  ought  to  be  kept  in  mind,  that  Bishop  Jewel's  Apology  for  the 
Church  of  England  was  laid  before  the  public  on  the  avowed  principle, 
that  it  contained  the  doctrine  of  that  church  .•  and  that  the  work  from  which 
the  above  quotation  is  made,  was  ordered  to  be  suspended  by  a  chain,  in 
all  the  churches  in  the  kingdom,  and  to  be  publicly  read  as  a  standard 
of  theological  instruction.  Slrype's  Annals,  IT.  100. 


166  LETTER  VII. 

Dr.  Whitaker,  a  learned  divine  of  the  church  of  England,  and 
professor  of  divinity  in  the  University  of  Cambridge,  in  his  treatise 
against  Campion,  the  Jesuit,  affirms,  that  bishop  and  presbyter  are, 
by  divine  right,  all  one.  And,  in  answer  to  Dury,  a  zealous  hier- 
archist  of  Scotland,  he  tells  him  "  that,  whereas  he  asserts,  with 
"  many  words,  that  bishop  and  presbyter  are  divers,  if  he  will 
"  retain  the  character  of  a  modest  divine,  he  must  not  so  confident- 
"  ly  affirm,  that  which  all  men  see  to  be  so  evidently  false.  For 
"  what  is  so  well  known,  says  he,  as  this  which  you  acknowledge 
"  not  ?  Jerome  plainly  writeth  that  elders  and  bishops  are  the 
"  same,  and  confirmeth  it  by  many  places  of  Scripture."  The 
same  celebrated  Episcopalian,  in  writing  against  Bellarmine,  says, 
"  From  2  Tim.  i.  6,  we  understand  that  Timothy  had  hands  laid 
"  on  him  by  presbyters,  who,  at  that  time  governed  the  church 
"  in  common  council  /*'  and  then  proceeds  to  speak  severely  of 
Bellarmine  and  the  Romish  church  for  confining  the  power  of  ordi- 
nation to  bishops  exclusively  of  presbyters. 

The  authority  of  few  men  stands  higher  among  the  friends  of 
prelacy,  than  that  of  Bishop  Hall,  who  wrote,  and  otherwise  exert- 
ed himself,  in  favour  of  the  divine  right  of  diocesan  episcopacy, 
with  as  much  zeal  and  ability  as  any  man  of  his  day.  Yet  this 
eminently  learned  and  pious  divine,  acknowledged  the  reformed 
church  of  Holland,  where  there  never  have  been  any  diocesan 
bishops,  to  be  a  true  church  of  Christ  ;  accepted  of  a  seat  in  the 
Synod  of  Dort,  in  which  the  articles  of  faith,  and  form  of  govern- 
ment of  that  church  were  settled  ;  recognised  the  deputies  from  all 
the  reformed  churches  on  the  continent,  none  of  whom  had  received 
episcopal  ordination,  as  regular  ministers  of  Christ ;  and,  when  he 
took  leave  of  the  Synod,  declared  that (t  there  was  no  place  upon 
"  earth  so  like  Heaven  as  the  Synod  of  Dort,  and  where  he  should 
"be  more  willing  to  dwell."  Brandt's  Hist.  Sess.  62.  The 
following  extract  of  a  sermon  which  he  delivered  in  Latin  before 
that  venerable  Synod,  contains  a  direct  and  unequivocal  acknow- 
ledgment of  the  church  of  Holland  as  a  true  church  of  Christ.  It 
was  delivered  Nov.  29,  1618  ;  and  founded  on  Eccles.  vii.  16. 
"  His  serene  majesty,  our  King  James,  in  his  excellent  letter, 
"  admonishes  the  Slates  General,  and  in  his  instructions  to  us  hath 
"  expressly  commanded  us,  to  urge  this  with  our  whole  might,  to 
"  inculcate  this  one  thing,  that  you  all  continue  to  adhere  to  the 


CONCESSIONS  OF  EPISCOPALIANS.         167 

«  common  faith,  and  the  confession  of  your  own  and  the  other 
«  churches  :  which  if  you  do,  O  happy  Holland !  O  chaste 
"  Spouse  of  Christ !  O  prosperous  Republic !  this  your  afflicted 
«  Church  tossed .  with  the  billows  of  differing  opinions,  will 
"  yet  reach  the  harbour,  and  safely  smile  at  all  the  storms  excited 
«  by  her  cruel  adversaries. '  That  this  may  at  length  be  obtained, 
"  let  us  seek  for  the  things  which  make  for  peace.  We  are 
"  brethren  ;  let  us  also  be  Colleagues  !  What  have  we  to  do  with 
"  the  infamous  titles  of  party  names  ?  We  are  Christians  ;  let  us 
"  also  be  of  the  same  mind.  We  are  one  body  ;  let  us  also  be 
"  unanimous.  By  the  tremendous  name  of  the  omnipotent  God  ; 
"  by  the  pious  and  loving  bosom  of  our  common  Mother;  by  your 
"  own  souls ;  by  the  holy  bowels  of  Jesus  Christ  our  Saviour,  my 
"  brethren,  seek  peace ;  pursue  peace."  See  the  whole  in  the 
"  Ada  Synodi  Nat.  Dord.  38.  But  this  excellent  prelate  went 
further.  A  little  more  than  twenty  years  after  his  mission  to 
Holland,  and  when  he  had  been  advanced  to  the  bishoprick  of 
Norwich,  he  published  his  Irenicum  (or  Peacemaker],  in  which  we 
find  the  following  passage,  Sect.  VI.  "  Blessed  be  God,  there  is  no 
"  difference,  in  any  essential  point,  between  the  church  of  England, 
"  and  her  sister  reformed  churches.  We  unite  in  every  article  of 
"  Christian  doctrine,  without  the  least  variation,  as  the  full  and 
"  absolute  agreement  between  their  public  confessions  and  ours 
"  testifies.*  The  only  difference  between  us  consists  in  our  mode 
"  of  constituting  the  external  ministry  ;  and  even  with  respect  to 
"  this  point  we  are  of  one  mind,  because  we  all  profess  to  believe 
"  that  it  is  not  an  essential  oi  the  church,  (though  in  the  opinion  of 
"  many  it  is  a  matter  of  importance  to  her  well  being  ;)  and  we  all 
"  retain  a  respectful  and  friendly  opinion  of  each  other,  not  seeing 
"  any  reason  why  so  small  a  disagreement  should  produce  any 
"  alienation  of  affection  among  us."  And  after  proposing  some 
common  principles  on  which  they  might  draw  more  closely 
together,  he  adds,  "  But  if  a  difference  of  opinion  with  regard  to 

*  It  has  long-  been  maintained  by  well  informed  persons,  that  the 
fathers,  or  the  most  distinguished  reformers  of  the  church  of  England 
were  doctrinal  Calvinists  ;  and  that  the  thirty -nine  Articles  of  that  church 
drawn  up  by  them  are  Calvinistic.  If  there  were  any  remaining  doubt 
with  respect  to  the  accuracy  of  this  representation,  the  opinion  of  Bishop 
Hall,  here  so  strongly  expressed,  would  be  decisive  in  its  support. 


168  LETTER  VJ1. 

"  these  points  of  external  order  must  continue,  why  may  we  not  be 
"  of  one  heart  and  of  one  mind?  or  why  should  this  disagreement 
"  break  the  bonds  of  good  brotherhood  ?"  How  different  the  lan- 
guage and  the  spirit  of  some  modern  advocates  for  the  divine  right 
of  diocesan  episcopacy ! 

The  same  practical  concession  was  made  by  the  eminently  learn- 
ed and  pious  Bishop  Davenant,  while  professor  of  divinity  in  the 
university  of  Cambridge.  He  accepted  of  a  seat  in  the  synod  of 
Dort,  and  gave  the  sanction  of  his  presence  and  aid  in  organizing 
the  Presbyterian  church  of  Holland.  We  are  informed,  indeed, 
that  Bishop  Carleton,  and  the  other  English  delegates,  expressed 
their  opinions  very  fully  in  the  synod,  in  favour  of  the  Episcopal 
form  of  government:  but  their  sitting  in  that  body  and  assisting  in 
its  deliberations  ;  their  preaching  in  the  pulpits  of  the  Presbyterian 
ministers  of  Dort,  and  attending  on  all  the  public  religious  services 
of  the  synod,  were  among  the  strongest  acknowledgments  they 
could  make,  that  they  considered  the  ministrations  of  non-episcopal 
ministers  as  valid.  But  Bishop  Davenant  went  further.  After 
his  advancement  to  the  bishoprick  of  Salisbury,  he  published  a 
work,  in  which  he  urged  with  much  earnestness  and  force,  a 
fraternal  union  among  all  the  reformed  churches.*  A  plan  which, 
it  is  obvious,  involved  in  it  an  explicit  acknowledgment  that  the 
foreign  reformed  churches,  most  of  which  were  Presbyterian, 
vere  true  churches  of  Christ ;  and  which,  indeed,  contained  in  its 
very  title,  a  declaration  that  those  churches  "  did  not  differ  from 
"the  church  of  England  in  any  fundamental  article  of  Christian 
"faith." 

Bishop  Croft's  concessions  on  this  subject  are  equally  candid 
and  decisive.  I  had  occasion-  in  a  former  letter  to  take  notice  of 
an  acknowledgment  of  the  most  pointed  sort  in  his  work,  entitled 
Naked  Truth,  a  work  written  and  published  while  the  author  was 
bishop  of  Hereford,  and  powerfully  defended  by  some  of  the  most 
learned  men  x)f  his  day.  The  following  additional  passages  from 
the  same  work  deserve  our  notice.  "The  scripture  no  where 
"  expresses  any  distinction  of  order  among  the  elders.  We  find 

*  Jtd  Fraternam  Communionem  inter  Evangelicas  Ecdesias  restauran- 
dam  Jldhortatio;  in  eofundata,  Quod  non  dissentiant  in  ullo  Fundamentali 
Catholics  Fidei  Artkulo.  Cantab.  1640. 


CONCESSIONS  OF  EPISCOPALIANS.  169 

"  there  but  two  orders  mentioned,  bishops  and  deacons.  The 
"  scripture  distinguished!  not  the  order  of  bishops  and  priests  ;  for 
"  there  we  find  but  one  kind  of  ordination,  then  certainly  but  one 
"  order ;  for  two  distinct  orders  cannot  be  conferred  in  the  same 
"instant,  by  the  same  words,  by  the  same  actions."  With  respect 
to  the  office  of  deacon,  this  bishop  entirely  coincides  with  scripture 
and  the  Presbyterian  church.  In  the  work  above  mentioned,  (p. 
49.)  he  remarks  that  he  will  not  dispute,  "  Whether  this  of  dea- 
"  conship  be  properly  to  be  called  an  order  or  an  office,  but 
"  certainly  no  spiritual  order ;  for  their  office  was  to  serve  tables, 
"  as  the  Scripture  phrases  it,  which  in  plain  English,  is  nothing  else 
"  but  overseers  of  the  poor,  to  distribute  justly  and  discreetly  the 
"  alms  of  the  faithful,  which  the  apostles  would  not  trouble  them- 
"  selves  withal,  lest  it  should  hinder  them  in  the  ministration  of  the 
"  word  and  prayer.  But  as  most  matters  of  this  world,  in  process 
"time,  deflect  much  from  the  original  constitution,  so  it  fell  out  in 
"  this  business  ;  for  the  bishops  who  pretended  to  be  successors  to 
"  the  apostles,  by  little  and  little,  took  to  themselves  the  dispensa- 
"  tion  of  alms,  first  by  way  of  inspection  over  the  deacons,  but  at 
"  length  the  total  management :  and  the  deacons,  who  were  mere 
"  lay-officers,  by  degrees  crept  into  the  church  ministration,  and 
"  became  a  reputed  spiritual  order,  and  a  necessary  degree  and 
"  step  to  the  priesthood,  of  which  I  can  find  nothing  in  scripture, 
"  and  the  original  institution,  nor  a  word  relating  to  any  thing  but 
"  the  ordering  of  alms  for  the  poor." 

Lord  George  Digby,  an  eminent  English  nobleman,  who  flour- 
ished in  the  reigns  of  Charles  I.  and  Charles  II.  and  who  wrote 
largely  on  the  questions  which  agitated  the  church  in  his  day,  in  a 
letter  to  Sir  Kenelme  Digby,  on  the  subject  before  us,  expresses 
himself  in  the  following  terms: — "He  that  would  reduce  the 
"  church  now,  to  the  form  of  government  in  the  most  primitive 
"  times,  would  not  take,  in  my  opinion,  the  best  nor  wisesj  course; 
"  I  am  sure  not  the  safest :  for  he  would  be  found  pecking  towards 
"  the  presbytery  of  Scotland,  which,  for  my  part,  I  believe,  in 
"  point  of  government,  hath  a  greater  resemblance  than  either 
"yours  or  ours,  to  the  Jirst  age,  and  yet  it  is  never  a  whit  the 
"  better  for  it ;  since  it  was  a  form  not  chosen  for  the  best,  but 
"  imposed  by  adversity  under  oppression,  which,  in  the  beginning, 
"  forced  the  church  from  what  it  wished,  to  what  it  might  ;  not 
Y 


170  LETTER  VII. 

"suffering  that  dignity  and  state  ecclesiastical  which  rightly 
"  belonged  unto  it,  to  manifest  itself  to  the  world : — and  which, 
"  soon  afterwards,  upon  the  least  lucid  intervals,  shone  forth  so 
"  gloriously  in  the  happier  as  well  as  more  monarchical  condition 
u  of  Episcopacy  :  of  which  way  of  government  I  am  so  well  per- 
"  suaded  that  I  think  it  pity  it  was  not  made  betimes  an  article  of 
"  the  Scottish  Catechism,  that  bishops  are  of  divine  right."41 

The  character  of  Archbishop  Usher  stands  high  with  Episco- 
palians. He  was  one  of  the  greatest  and  best  of  men.  His  plan 
for  the  reduction  of  Episcopacy  into  the  form  of  Synodical 
government,  received  in  the  Ancient  Church,  is  well  known  to 
every  one  who  is  tolerably  versed  in  the  ecclesiastical  history  of 
England.  The  essential  principle  of  that  plan  is,  that  bishop  and 
presbyter,  were  originally  the  same  order ;  and  that  in  the  primi- 
tive church,  the  bishop  was  only  a  standing  president  or  moderator 
among  his  fellow  presbyters.  To  guard  against  the  possibility  of 
mistake,  the  illustrious  prelate  declared  he  meant  to  restore 
"  that  kind  of  Presbyterian  government,  which,  in  the  church  of 
"  England,  had  long  been  disused."  The  archbishop,  further, 
"  being  asked  by  Charles  I.  in  the  Isle  of  Wight',  whether  he  found 
"  in  antiquity  that  presbyters  alone  ordained  any  ?"  answered, 
"  Yes,  and  that  he  could  show  his  Majesty  more,  even  where 
"presbyters  alone  successively  ordained  bishops,  and  brought 
"  as  an  instance  of  this,  the  presbytersof  Alexandria  choosing  and 
"  making  their  own  bishops,  from  the  days  of  Mark,  till  Heraclas 
"  and  Dionysius."  The  following  declaration  of  the  same  learned 
dignitary,  is  also  full  to  our  purpose.  It  having  been  reported  of 
him,  that  he  had  expressed  an  uncharitable  opinion  concerning  the 
church  of  Holland,  as  no  true  church,  because  she  was  without 
diocesan  bishops,  when  they  were  within  her  reach,  if  she  had 
chosen  to  accept  them,  he  thus  repels  the  calumny  :  "  I  have  ever 
"  declared  my  opinion  to  be,  that  bishop  and  presbyter  differ  only 
"  in  degree,  and  not  in  order ;  and  consequently,  that  in  places 
"  where  bishops  cannot  be  had,  the  ordination  by  presbyters 
"  standeth  valid.  Yet,  on  the  other  side,  holding,  as  I  do,  that  a 
"  bishop  hath  superiority  in  degree  over  a  presbyter,  you  may 
"  easily  judge,  that  the  ordination  made  by  such  presbyters,  as 

*  Jus  Divinum  Minis.  Evang.  II.  p.  107. 


,     CONCESSIONS   OF  EPISCOPALIANS.  171 

"  have  severed  themselves  from  those  bishops  unto  whom  they  had 
"  sworn  canonical  obedience,  cannot  possibly  by  me  be  excused 
"  from  being  schismatical.  And  howsoever,  I  must  needs  think, 
"  that  the  churches  which  have  no  bishops,  are  thereby  become 
"very  much  defective  in  their  government,  and  that  the  churches 
"  in  France,  who,  living  under  a  popish  power,  cannot  do  what 
"  they  would,  are  more  excusable  in  this  defect,  than  the  Low 
"  Countries,  who  live  under  a  free  state  ;  yet,  for  the  testifying  of 
"  my  communion  with  these  churches,  (which  I  do  love  and  honour 
"  as  true  members  of  the  church  universal,)  I  do  profess,  that  with 
"  like  affection  I  should  receive  the  blessed  sacrament  at  the  hands 
"  of  the  Dutch  ministers,  if  I  were  in  Holland,  as  I  should  do  at 
"  the  hands  of  the  French  ministers,  if  I  were  in  Charenton."* 
Bishop  Forbes,  a  zealous  Episcopalian,  in  his  Irenicum,  Lib. 
"  II.  cap.  xi.  Prop.  13.  expresses  himself  thus  :  "  Presbyters 
"  have,  by  divine  light,  the  power  of  ordaining,  as  well  as  of 
"  preaching  and  baptizing.  They  ought,  indeed,  to  exercise  this 
"  function  under  the  inspection  and  government  of  a  bishop,  in 
"  places  where  there  are  bishops.  But  in  other  pfoces,  where  the 
"government  of  the  church  is  administered  by  the  common  coun- 
"  sel  of  presbyters  alone,  that  ordination  is  valid  and  effectual 
"  which  is  performed  by  the  imposition  of  the  hands  of  presbyters 
"  alone."  In  confirmation  of  this  doctrine,  Bishop  Forbes  quotes 
two  passages  from  the  fathers.  The  first  is  from  Hilary, 
(Ambrose,)  who,  he  says,  tells  us,  in  his  commentary  on  the  Ephe- 
sians,  that  in  Egypt,  presbyters  ordain  if  a  bishop  be  not  present ; 
which  passage  in  Hilary  he  interprets  precisely  as  I  have  done,  in 
a  preceding  letter.  The  second  is  from  Augustine,  who,  he  informs 
us,  declares,  that  in  Alexandria,  and  through  the  whole  of  Egypt, 
if  a  bishop  be  not  present,  presbyters  ordain.  Again,  he  says: 
"  From  all  these  things,  it  is  manifest,  that,  in  the  ancient  church, 
"  it  was  lawful  for  presbyters  alone,  if  bishops  were  not  present,  to 
"  ordain  presbyters  and  deacons  ;  and  such  ordinations  were  held 
"  to  be  valid,  although  it  was  prudently  appointed,  for  the  preser- 
"  vation  of  discipline,  that  this  should  not  be  done  without  the 
"  consent  of  a  bishop.  That  is  to  say,  in  those  places  in  which 
"  there  were  bishops,  it  was  held  to  be  criminal  to  despise  their 

*  See  the  judgment  of  the  late  Archbishop  of  Armagh,  110—123 


172  LETTER  VII. 

<l  authority.  But  in  those  places  in  which  presbyters  only  governed 
"  the  church,  it  was  sufficient  to  stamp  validity  upon  an  ordination 
"  that  it  be  performed  under  the  authority  of  an  assembly,  or  bench 
"  of  presbyters." 

The  concessions  of  Dr.  Stittingjleet,  (afterwards  bishop  of 
Worcester^)  on  this  subject  are  well  known.  The  avowed  object 
of  his  Irenicum,  one  of  the  most  learned  works  of  the  age  in  which 
it  appeared,  was  to  show,  that  no  form  of  church  government  is 
prescribed  in  the  word  of  God  ;  that  the  church  is  at  liberty  to 
modify  the  details  of  her  external  order,  both  with  respect  to 
officers  and  functions,  as  well  as  discipline,  at  pleasure ;  and  of 
course,  that  ordinations  and  government  by  presbyters  are  equally 
valid  with  those  administered  by  diocesan  bishops.  He  seems  to 
acknowledge,  indeed,  that  Presbyterian  parity,  is  on  the  whole, 
more  agreeable  to  scripture,  and  to  the  practice  of  the  primitive 
church,  than  prelacy;  but,  at  the  same  time,  denies  that  this  ought 
to  be  considered  as  establishing  the  divine  right  of  presbytery.  In 
the  course  of  this  work,  the  learned  author  exhibits  a  mass  of  evi- 
dence from  scripture  and  primitive  antiquity  against  the  episcopal 
claims,  and  quotes  declarations  made  by  some  of  the  most 
distinguished  divines  of  different  ages  and  denominations,  which 
will  doubtless  be  read  with  surprise  by  those  who  have  been 
accustomed  to  believe  that  the  whole  Christian  world,  with  very 
little  exception,  has  always  been  episcopal. 

To  destroy  the  force  of  Dr.  StillingfleeCs  concessions,  it  is  urged, 
that  he  afterwards  became  dissatisfied  with  this  work,  and  retracted 
the  leading  opinion  which  it  maintains.*  To  this  suggestion  I  will 

*  The  Irenicum  has  been  stigmatized  by  some  high-toned  Episcopalians, 
as  an  hasty,  indigested  work,  written  at  an  early  period  of  the  author's 
life,  and  soon  repented  of.  The  following  facts  will  show  how  far  this 
representation  is  correct.  After  having  been  several  years  engaged  in 
the  composition  of  this  work,  the  author  published  it  in  1659,  at  the  age 
of  twenty -four.  Three  years  afterwards,  viz.  in  1662,  he  published  a 
second  edition ,-  and  the  same  year,  he  gave  to  the  world  his  Origines  Sa- 
cras.  Soon  after  these  publications,  he  met  his  diocesan,  the  celebrated 
Bishop  Saunderson,  at  a  visitation.  The  bishop  seeing  so  young  a  man, 
could  hardly  believe  it  was  Stilling Jleet,  whom  he  had  hitherto  known 
only  by  his  writings;  and,  after  having  embraced  him,  said,  he  much 
rather  expected  to  have  seen  one  as  considerable  for  his  age  as  he  had  already 


CONCESSIONS  OF  EPISCOPALIANS.  173 

reply,  by  a  quotation  from  Bishop  White  of  Pennsylvania,  who 
in  a  pamphlet  published  a  few  years  since,  having  occasion  to 
adduce  the  Irenicum  as  an  authority  against  high  church  notions, 
speaks  of  the  performance  and  its  author  in  the  following  terras  : 
"  As  that  learned  prelate  was  afterwards  dissatisfied  with  his  work, 
"  (though  most  probably  not  with  that  part  of  it  which  would  have 
"  been  to  our  purpose,)  it  might  seem  uncandid  to  cite  the  author- 
"  ity  of  his  opinion.  Bishop  Burnet,  his  cotemporary  and  friend, 
"  says,  (History  of  his  own  Times,  anno  l66l,)  To  avoid  the 
"  imputation  that  book  brought  on  him,  he  went  into  the  humours 
"of an  high  sort  of  people,  beyond  what  became  him,  perhaps 
"  beyond  his  own  sense  of  things."  "  The  book,  however,"  Bishop 
White  adds,  "  was,  it  seems,  easier  retracted  than  refuted ;  for 
"  though  offensive  to  many  of  both  parties,  it  was  managed,  (says 
"  the  same  author,)  with  so  much  learning  and  skill,  that  none  of 
"  either  side  ever  undertook  to  answer  it." 

The  truth  seems  to  be,  that  Dr.  Stillingfleet,  finding  that  the 
opinions  of  a  number  of  influential  men  in  the  church  were  differ- 
ent from  those  which  he  had  advanced  in  this  work  ;  and  finding 
also  that  a  fixed  adherence  to  them  might  be  adverse  to  the  inte- 
rests of  the  established  church,  in  which  he  sought  preferment,  he 
made  a  kind  of  vague  and  feeble  recantation  ;  and  wrote  in  favour 
of  the  apostolic  origin  of  Episcopacy.  It  is  remarkable,  however, 
that  this  prelate,  in  answer  to  an  accusation  of  inconsistency 
between  his  early  and  his  latter  writings  on  this  subject,  assigned 
another  reason  besides  a  change  of  opinion,  viz.  that  the  former 
were  written  "  before  the  laws  were  established."  But  in  what- 
ever degree  his  opinion  may  have  been  altered,  his  reasonings  and 
authorities  have  undergone  no  change.  They  remain  in  all  their 
force,  and  have  never  been  refuted,  either  by  himself,  or  by  others. 

shown  himself  for  his  learning.  See  the  Life  of  Bishop  Stillingjket,  p. 
12—16.  When  a  divine  of  acknowledged  talents  and  learning1,  (whatever 
may  be  his  age,)  after  spending  several  years  in  a  composition  of  mode- 
rate length,  deliberately  commits  it  to  the  press;  when,  after  reflecting- 
on  the  subject,  and  hearing  the  remarks  of  his  friends  for  three  years  lon- 
ger, he  publishes  it  a  second  time;  and  when,  after  this  second  publica- 
tion, he  is  complimented  for  his  great  erudition,  by  one  of  the  most  able 
and  learned  dignitaries  of  the  age,  there  seems  little  room  for  a  charge 
of  haste  or  want  of  digestion. 


174  LETTER  VII. 

The  concessions  of  Bishop  Burnet  on  this  subject,  are  numerous 
and  unequivocal.  Several  have  been  already  mentioned.  Out  of 
many  more  which  might  be  presented,  I  select  the  following  decla- 
ration :  "I  acknowledge  bishop  and  presbyter  to  be  one  and  the 
"  same  office,  and  so  plead  for  no  new  office-bearer  in  the  church* 
"  The  first  branch  of  their  power  is  their  authority  to  publish  the 
"  Gospel,  to  manage  the  worship,  and  dispense  the  sacraments ;  and 
"  this  is  all  that  is  of  divine  right  in  the  ministry,  in  which  bishops 
"  and  presbyters  are  equal  sharers.  But  besides  this,  the  church 
"  claimeth  a  power  of  jurisdiction,  of  making  rules  for  discipline^ 
"  and  applying  and  executing  the  same ;  all  which  is,  indeed, 
"  suitable  to  the  common  laws  of  society,  and  the  general  rules  of 
"  Scripture,  but  hath  no  positive  warrant  from  any  Scripture  pre- 
"  cept.  Andtjall  these  constitutions  of  churches  into  Synods,  and 
"  the  canons  of  discipline  taking  their  rise  from  the  divisions  of  the 
"  world  into  several  provinces,  and  beginning  in  the  second,  and 
"  beginning  of  the  third  century,  do  clearly  show,  that  they  can  be 
"  derived  from  no  divine  original,  and  so  were,  as  to  their  particular 
"  form,  but  of  human  institution."* 

The  opinions  held  by  Archbishop  Tittotson,  on  this  subject, 
substantially  agree  with  those  of  Bishop  Burnet ;  or,  if  they  differ 
from  ftiem,  are  even  more  favourable  to  Presbyterian  church  gov- 
ernment. He  was  decidedly  in  favour  of  admitting  the  dissenting 
clergy  into  the  church  of  England,  without  re-ordaining  them  ;  and 
did  not  scruple  to  avow  that  he  considered  their  ordination  as 
equally  valid  with  that  which  was  received  from  episcopal  bishops. 
And,  in  conformity  with  this  opinion,  he  advised  the  episcopal 
clergy  of  Scotland  to  unite  with  the  Presbyterian  church  in  that 
country,  and  submit  to  its  government.! 

Archbishop  Wake,  who  was  a  warm  friend  to  prelacy,  and 
whose  character  stands  high  with  its  advocates,  it  is  well  known 
kept  up  a  constant  friendly  correspondence  with  the  most  eminent 
pastors  and  professors  in  Geneva  and  Holland;  manifested  a 
fraternal  regard  to  them ;  declared  their  churches,  notwithstand- 

*  Vindication  of  the  church  and  state  of  Scotland,  p.  331. 

j-  See  Remarks  upon  the  Life  of  the  most  Reverend  Dr.  John  Tillotson, 
8vo.  1754 ;  in  which  the  author,  a  most  violent  Episcopalian,  acknow- 
ledges these  facts,  and  loads  him  with  much  abuse  on  account  of  them. 


CONCESSIONS  OF  EPISCOPALIANS.  175 

ing  their  difference  in  discipline  and  government  from  his  own,  to 
be  true  churches  of  Christ ;  and  expressed  a  warm  desire  for  their 
union  with  the  church  of  England,  at  the  head  of  which  he  was 
then  placed.     In  a  letter  which  he  wrote  to  the  celebrated  Le 
Clerc,  of  the  Genevan  school,  then  residing  in  Holland,  in  the  year 
1719,  there  is  the  following  passage.     "I  freely  embrace  the 
"  reformed  churches,  notwithstanding  they  differ  in  some  respects 
"  from  that  of  England.     I  could  wish,  indeed,  they  had  retained 
"  that  moderate  episcopacy,  freed  from  all  unjust  domination,  which 
"  obtains  among  us,  and  which,  if  I  have  any  skill  in  judging  on  this 
"  subject,  was  received   in  the  church,  from  the  apostolic  age. 
"  Nor  do  I  despair  of  its  being  restored.     If  I  should  not  see  it 
"  myself,  posterity  will.     In  the  mean  time,  I  am  so  far  from  being 
"  so  uncharitable  as  to  believe  that  any  of  those  churches,  on 
"  account  of  this  defect,  (for  so  I  must  be  allowed,  without  invi- 
"  diousness,  to  call  it)  ought  to  be  cut  off  from  our  communion  ; 
"  nor  can  I,  by  any  means,  join  with  certain  MAD  writers  among 
"  us,  in  denying  the  validity  of  their  sacraments,  and  in  calling 
"  in  question  their  right  to  the  name  of  Christian  churches*     I 
"  could  wish  to  bring  about,  at  any   price,  a  more   close  union 
"  between  all  the  reformed  churches."     The  same  prelate,  in  a 
letter  to  Professor   Turretin,of  Geneva,  in  1718,  speaking  of 
Bishop  Davenant's  conciliatory  opinions,  declares  that  they  per- 
fectly coincide  with  his  own,  and  that  he  could  earnestly  wish  thai 
all  Christians  were  of  the  same  mind.     Another  letter,  of  a  more 
public  nature,  which  he  afterwards  addressed  to  the  pastors  and 
professors  of  Geneva,  abounds  with  similar  sentiments,  and  ex- 
presses the  most  fraternal  affection  for  those  Presbyterian  worthies.f 
Nor  were  these  letters  written  by  him  merely  as  a  private  man,  or 
in  the  spirit  of  temporizing  politeness  ;  but  manifestly  with  all  the 

*  The  language  employed  by  the  good  archbishop  to  express  his 
disapprobation  of  this  doctrine  is  remarkably  strong  and  pointed.  He 
calls  those  writers  who  attempt  to  maintain  it,  furiosi,  i.  e.  madmen.  If 
he  spoke  in  this  style  of  such  writers  in  England,  where  diocesan 
episcopacy  was  established  by  law,  and  when  he  was  himself  at  the 
head  of  that  establishment;  what  would  he  have  said  concerning 
writers  of  a  similar  stamp,  at  the  present  day  in  America,  where  all 
denominations,  with  respect  to  the  state,  stand  on  a  level  ? 

f  See  Appendix  III.  to  Mosheim's  Ecclesiastical  History, 


176  LETTER  VII. 

deliberation  and  solemnity  of  a  man  who  felt  his  official  respon- 
sibility. 

The  learned  Joseph  Bingham,  who  has  written  largely  and  ably 
in  defence  of  the  episcopacy  of  the  church  of  England,  frankly 
acknowledges,  that  "  that  church  does  by  no  means  damn  or  cut 
"  off  from  her  communion,  those  who  believe  bishops  and  presby- 
"  ters  to  be  the  same  order.  Some  of  our  best  episcopal  divines, 
"  and  true  sons  of  the  church  of  England,  have  said  the  same, 
"  distinguishing  between  order  and  jurisdiction,  and  made  use  of 
"  this  doctrine  and  distinction  to  justify  the  ordinations  of  the 
"  reformed  churches,  against  the  Romanists."*  French  Church's 
Apol  p.  262. 

Dr.  John  Edwards,  a  learned  and  respectable  divine  of  the 
church  of  England,  in  a  treatise  on  this  subject,  after  having  con- 
sidered the  testimonies  of  Clement,  Ignatius,  Cyprian,  Chrysos- 
tom,  Theodoret,  Jerome,  and  others,  makes  the  following  declara- 
tion.    "  From  all  these  we  may  gather  that  the  scripture  bishop 
"  was  the  chief  of  the  presbyters ;  but  he  was  not  of  a  distinct 
"  order  from  them.     And  as  for  the  times  after  the  apostles,  none 
"  of  these  writers,  nor  any  ecclesiastical  historian,  tells  us,  that  a 
"  person  of  an  order  superior  to  presbyters  was  set  over  the 
*  "  presbyters.     It  is  true  one  single  person  is  recorded  to  have 
"  presided  over  the  college  of  presbyters,  but  this  college  had  the 
"  the  same  power  with  the  single  person,  though  not  the  particular 
"  dignity  of  presidentship.     The  short  is,  the  bishops  in   these 
"  times  were  presbyters  ;  only  he  that  presided  over  the  body  of 
"presbyters   was   called  bishop,  while  the  rest    were   generally 
"  known  by  the  title  of  presbyters;  and  the  bishop  was  still  but  a 
"  presbyter,  as  to  order  and  function,  though,  for  distinction  sake, 
"  he  was  known  by  the  name  of  bishop.     He  was  superior  to  the 
"  other  presbyters  as  long  as  he  executed  his  office,  as  a  chairman 
"  in  a  committee  is  above  the  rest  of  the  justices  whilst  he  holds  that 
"  place.     It  was  generally  the   most  ancient  presbyter  that  was 
"  chosen  to  preside  over  the  college  of  presbyters,  but  he  had  no 
"  superiority  of  power.    All  the  priority  or  primacy  he  had  was 

*  It  will  be  distinctly  remembered,  that  all  the  reformed  Churches, 
excepting  that  of  England,  admitted  and  practised  ordination  by 
presbyters. 


CONCESSIONS  OF  EPISCOPALIANS.  177 

"  that  of  order.  Here  is  the  ancient  pattern.  Why  is  it  not 
"  followed  ?*  To  single  fathers,  we  may  add  councils,  who  deliver 
"the  same  sense.  This,  then,  is  the  true  account  of  the  matter. 
"  Bishops  were  elders  or  presbyters,  and  therefore  of  the  same 
"  order  ;  but  the  bishops  differed  from  the  presbyters  in  this  only, 
"  that  they  were  chosen  by  the  elders  to  preside  over  them  at 
"  their  ecclesiastical  meetings  or  assemblies/}"  But  in  after  ages, 
"  the  presbyters  of  some  churches  parted  with  their  liberty  and 
"  right,  and  agreed  among  themselves  that  ecclesiastical  matters 
"  should  be  managed  by  the  bishop  only."  Edwards'  Remains, 
p.  253. 

Sir  Peter  King,  lord  chancellor  of  Englamd,  about  the  begin, 
ning  of  the  eighteenth  century,  published  a  very  learned  work, 
entitled,  An  Inquiry  into  the  Constitution,  Discipline,  Unity,  and 
Worship,  of  the  Primitive  Church,  that  flourished  within  the  first 
300  years  after  Christ.  In  this  work  his  lordship  undertakes  to 
show,  "  that  a  presbyter,  in  the  primitive  church,  meant  a  person 
"  in  holy  orders,  having  thereby  an  inherent  right  to  perform  the 
"  whole  office  of  a  bishop,  and  differing  from  a  bishop  in  nothing, 
"  but  in  having  no  parish,  or  pastoral  charge."  He  further  shows, 
"  that  presbyters,  in  those  times  of  primitive  purity,  were  called  by 
"the  same  titles,  and  were  of  the  same  specific  order  with  bishops ; 
"  that  they  ruled  in  those  churches  to  which  they  belonged  ;  that 
"  they  presided  in  church  consistories  with  the  bishop  ;  that  they 
"  had  the  power  of  excommunication,  and  of  restoring  penitents  ; 
"  that  they  confirmed;  and  that  there  are  clearer  proofs  of  pres- 
"  byters  ordaining,  than  of  their  administering  the  Lord's  Supper." 
The  same  learned  author  maintains  that  there  were  but  two  orders 
of  church  officers,  instituted  by  the  authority  of  Christ,  viz.  bishops 
and  deacons :  "  and  if  they  ordained  but  two,"  adds  he,  "  I  think 
"  no  one  had  ever  a  commission  to  add  a  third,  or  to  split  one  into 


*  Here  is  an  explicit  acknowledgment,  that  the  episcopacy  of  the 
Church  of  England,  and  primitive  episcopacy,  are  very  different  things. 

f  The  primitive  bishop,  in  Dr.  Edwards*  judgment,  therefore,  corres- 
ponds exactly  with  the  moderator  or  president,  of  our  presbyteries,  who 
is  a  standing  officer,  elected  at  stated  periods,  who  always  presides  at 
the  meetings  of  the  body  to  which  he  belongs,  and  until  a  successor  is 
chosen. 

'L 


178  LETTER  VII. 

"  two,  as  must  be  done,  if  we  separate  the  order  of  presbyters  from 
"  the  order  of  bishops." 

Dr.  Haweis,  an  eminent  clergyman  of  the  Church  of  England) 
now  living,  in  the  Introduction  to  his  Ecclesiastical  History, 
makes  the  following  decided  avowal.  "  Having,  through  divine 
"  mercy,  obtained  grace  to  be  faithful — having  in  Providence 
"  received  my  education,  and  been  called  to  minister  in  the  church 
"  of  England,  I  have  embraced  and  subscribed  her  articles,  ex  an- 
"  imo,  and  have  continued  to  prefer  an  episcopal  mode  of  govern- 
"  ment.  JBut  disclaiming  all  exclusive  pretensions,  and  joined  to 
"  the  Lord  in  one  spirit,  with  all  the  faithful  of  every  denomination, 
"  I  candidly  avow  my  conviction,  that  the  true  church  is  catholic, 
"  or  universal  5  not  monopolized  by  any  one  body  of  professing 
"  Christians,  but  essentially  a  spiritual  church  ;  and  consisting  only 
"  and  equally  of  those  who,  in  every  denomination,  love  our  Lord 
"  Jesus  Christ  in  sincerity.  Respecting  the  administration  of 
"  this  church,  I  am  not  convinced  that  the  Lord  of  life  and  glory 
"  left  any  precise  regulations.  His  kingdom  could  alike  subsist 
"  under  any  species  of  government ;  and  having  nothing  to  do 
"  with  this  world,  was,  in  externals,  to  be  regulated  by  existing 
"  circumstances.  Whether  Episcopacy,  Presbytery,  or  the  con- 
"  gregational  order,  be  established  as  the  dominant  profession,  it 
u  affects  not  the  bocjy  of  Christ.  The  living  members,  under  each 
"of  these  modes  of  administration,  are  alike  bound  to  love  one 
"  another  out  of  a  pure  heart  fervently  ;  to  indulge  their  brethren 
"  in  the  same  liberty  of  private  judgment  which  they  exercise 
"  themselves ;  and  ought  never  to  suffer  these  regulations  of  out- 
"  ward  order  to  destroy  the  unity  of  the  spirit,  or  to  break  the 
"  bonds  of  peace." 

The  Rev.  Mr.  Gisborne,  a  distinguished  and  popular  writer,  of 
the  Church  of  England,  also  now  living,  avows  opinions  nearly 
similar  to  those  contained  in  the  preceding  quotation.  In  his  Sur- 
vey of  the  Christian  Religion,  (chapter  xii.)  he  has  the  following 
passage.  "  If  Christ,  or  his  apostles,  enjoined  the  uniform  adop- 
"  tion  of  episcopacy,  the  question  is  decided.  Did  Christ  then,  or 
"  his  disciples,  deliver,  or  indirectly  convey,  such  an  injunction? 
«  This  topic  has  been  greatly  controverted.  The  fact  appears  to 
"  be  this:  that  the  Saviour  did  not  pronounce  upon  the  subject ; 
<{  that  the  apostles  uniformly  established  a  bishop  in  every  district. 


CONCESSIONS  OF  EPISCOPALIANS.  179 

"as  soon  as  the  Church  in  that  district  became  numerous;  and  thus 
"  clearly  evinced  their  judgment,  as  to  the  form  of  ecclesiastical 
"  government  most  advantageous,  at  least  in  those  days,  to  christi- 
"  anity ;  but  that  they  left  no  command  which  ren/Jered  episcopacy 
"universally  indispensable  in  future  times,  if  other  forms  should 
<e  evidently  promise,  through  local  opinions  and  circumstances 
"  greater  benefit  to  religion.  SUCH  is  THE  GENERAL  SENTIMENT 

"  OF  THE  PRESENT  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND  ON  THE  SUBJECT." 

An  eminent  layman  of  the  church  of  England,  in  a  work  lately 
published,  in  the  course  of  some  excellent  advices  for  promoting 
the  prosperity  of  that  church,  expressly  reprobates  the  exclusive 
claims  for  which  some  zealous  hierarchists  contend,  and  pro- 
nounces them  most  mischievous  in  their  operation  on  the  interests 
of  religion.  Among  many  pertinent  and  judicious  remarks  on  this 
subject,  he  makes  the  following.  "  A  general  presumption  lies 
"  against  all  extraordinary  claims  ;  and  on  this  account,  the  oppo- 
"  sition  which  is  commonly  made  to  them,  (though  previous  to 
"  examination)  is  not  absolutely  unreasonable.  They  are  marks 
"  by  which  the  weakest  persons,  as  well  as  the  weakest  causes,  are 
"  particularly  distinguished.  In  this  kind  of  competition,  the  em- 
"  piric,  the  pedant,  and  the  sophist,  will  far  outstrip  the  skilful 
"  physician,  the  able  scholar,  and  the  profound  philosopher.  The 
"  same  observation  is  applicable  to  bodies  of  men,  ecclesiastical 
"  as  well  as  civil.  Hence  the  high  claims  of  the  Romish  church 
"  afford  the  protestants  one  of  their  most  legitimate  presumptions 
"  against  her.  From  her  claim  of  right  to  an  absolute  dictatorial 
"  authority,  we  presume  the  contrary  ;  from  her  claim  to  apostolic 
"purity  in  her  faith,  worship,  government,  and  discipline,  we 
"  presume  upon  her  corruption  in  each.  Fronyjher  denial  of  sal- 
"  vation  to  those  that  are  without  her  pale,  we  presume  it  to  be 
"  peculiarly  hazardous  to  be  found  within  it.  Thus  by  her  ambi- 
"  tiousor  fanatical  endeavours  to  exalt  herself  above  other  churches, 
"  she  supplies  them,  and  her  adversaries  in  general,  with  a  forcible 
"  plea  against  herself."  Again :  <(  Suppose  a  church  to  give  a 
"  decided  preference  to  episcopal  government,  not  considering  it 
"  as  absolutely  essential  to  her  being,  but  as  conducive  to  her  well- 
"  being;  not  as  indispensably  necessary,  but  expedient ;  and  this 
"  chiefly  in  respect  to  her  own  edification,  without  any  positive 
"  determination  as  to  other  churches  ;  it  is  almost  irapossible'that 


180  LETTER  VII. 

"  a  preference  thus  qualified  should  occasion  any  contest  or  ani- 
"  mosity.  But  if  she  assert  such  a  government  to  be  of  indispen- 
"  sable  divine  right,  and  set  up  a  claim  which  nullifies  the  sacra- 
"  ments  and  administrations  of  other  churches,  she  must  expect  to 
"  encounter  the  most  violent  opposition.  On  the  other  hand,  should 
"  a  church,  on  account  of  the  parity  of  her  ministers,  exalt  herself 
"  above  other  churches,  and  look  down  on  the  episcopal  order,  in 
"  its  most  primitive  state,  as  something  popish  and  antichristian  ; 
"  she  can  hardly  fail,  by  such  an  extravagance,  to  diminish  her 
"  credit  with  all  impartial  by-standers."* 

The  opinions  and  the  declarations  of  Dr.  White,  the  present 
bishop  of  the  episcopal  churches  ^Pennsylvania,  will  have  weight 
with  all  Episcopalians.  In  a  pamphlet  published  by  him,  a  few 
years  ago,  entitled.  The  Case  of  the  Episcopal  Churches  in  the 
United  States  considered,  the  principal  object  of  which  was  to 
recommend  a  temporary  departure  from  the  line  of  episcopal 
succession,  on  the  ground  that  bishops  could  not  then  be  had,  we 
find  the  following  passage,  p.  28.  "  Now  if  even  those  who  hold 
"  episcopacy  to  be  of  divine  right,  conceive  the  obligation  to  it  not 
"  to  be  binding  when  that  idea  would  be  destructive  of  public 
"  worship  5  much  more  must  they  think  so,  who  indeed  venerate 
"  and  prefer  that  form  as  the  most  ancient  and  eligible,  but  without 
"  any  idea  of  divine  right  in  the  case.  This  the  author  believes 
"to  be  the  sentiment  of  the  great  body  of  Episcopalians  in  Ame- 
"  rica  ;  in  which  respect  they  have  in  their  favour,  unquestionably  9 
"  the  sense  of  the  church  of  England ;  and,  as  he  believes,  the 
"  opinions  of  her  most  distinguished  prelates  for  piety,  virtue,  and 
«  abilities."* 

Another  instance  of  concession  from  an  eminent  Episcopalian, 
is  that  of  the  present  Bishop  of  Lincoln,  who,  in  his  Elements  of 
Christian  Theology,  a  work  of  great  authority  and  popularity  in 
the  church  of  England  at  this  time,  expresses  himself  in  the  follow- 
ing terms.  "  Though  I  flatter  myself  that  I  have  proved  episco- 

*  Christian  Politics,  by  Ely  Bates,  Esq.  Part  II.  Sect.  5.  Second  edition, 
1806. 

*  It  will  be  observed,  that  I  am  not  alone  in  supposing  that  the  great 
body  of  the  church  of  England,  both  clergy  and  laity,  reject  the  divine 
right  of  prelacy.     A  bishop  of  the  highest  reputation  in  the  episcopal 
church  in  the  United  States,  has  pronounced  that  this  is  unquestionably  so 


CONCESSIONS  OF  EPISCOPALIANS.  181 

u  pacy  to  be  an  apostolical  institution  ;  yet  I  readily  acknowledge, 
"  that  there  is  no  precept  in  the  New  Testament,  which  cora- 
"  mands  that  every  church  should  be  governed  by  bishops.  No 
t(  church  can  exist  without  some  government.  But  though  there 
"  must  be  rules  and  orders  for  the  proper  discharge  of  the  offices  of 
"  public  worship ;  though  there  must  be  fixed  regulations  con- 
"  cerning  the  appointment  of  ministers;  and  though  a  subordination 
"  among  them  3s  expedient,  in  the  highest  degree  5  yet  it  does  not 
"  follow  that  all  these  things  must  be  precisely  the  same  in  every 
"  Christian  country.  They  may  vary  with  the  other  varying 
"  circumstances  of  human  society  ;  with  the  extent  of  a  country, 
"  the  manners  of  its  inhabitants,  the  nature  of  its  civil  government, 
"  and  many  other  peculiarities  which  might  be  specified.  As  it 
"  hath  not  pleased  our  Almighty  Father  to  prescribe  any  particular 
"  form  of  civil  government,  for  the  security  of  temporal  comforts 
"  to  his  rational  creatures ;  so  neither  has  he  prescribed  any 
"  particular  form  of  ecclesiastical  polity,  as  absolutely  necessary  to 
*'  the  attainment  of  eternal  happiness.  The  scriptures  do  not 
"  prescribe  any  particular  form  of  church  government.'*  Vol.  II. 
p.  383,  &c. 

To  the  foregoing  quotations,  I  shall  only  add,  that  a  number  of 
the  most  learned  divines  of  the  church  of  England,  when  writing 
on  other  subjects,  have  indirectly  made  concessions  quite  as  deci- 
sive as  any  that  have  been  mentioned.  Almost  every  divine  of 
that  church  who  has  undertaken  to  explain  the  prophetic  parts  of 
the  sacred  writings,  has  represented  the  reformed  Churches  as 
"  the  Lord's  sealed  ones  5"  as  his  "  anointed  ones ;"  as  the 
"  witnesses  against  the  man  of  sin  5"  as  the  "  saints  of  the  most 
high  ;"  as  having  "  the  temple  of  God,"  and  his  "  altar."  Among 
many  that  might  be  named  in  confirmation  of  this  remark,  the 
ingenious  and  excellent  Mr.  Faber,  in  a  work  published-  in  the 
course  of  the  last  year,  (1806,)  and  which  has  received  the  decided 
approbation  of  his  diocesan,  expressly  applies  to  the  German  pro- 
testants,  those  prophecies  which  represent  the  purest  part  of  the 
Christian  church.  He  dates  the  death  of  the  witnesses  at  the  bat- 
tle of  Mulburg,  in  April,  1547,  and  their  resurrection  at  Magde 
burgh,  in  the  year  1550.  He  does  not  claim  for  the  church  of 
England  even  the  first  rank  among  the  witnesses,  and  much  less 
the  exclusive  title  to  that  honour. 


182  LETTER  VII. 

The  foregoing  quotations  are  only  a  small  specimen  of  what 
might  have  been  produced,  if  our  limits  admitted  of  their  being 
further  multiplied.  Nothing  would  be  more  easy  than  to  fill  a 
volume  with  concessions  of  similar  import  ;  concessions  made,  not 
by  men  of  obscure  name  and  small  learning  ;  but  by  divines  of  the 
most  exalted  character,  for  talents,  erudition,  and  piety,  that  ever 
adorned  the  church  of  England  ;  divines  who  shared  her  highest 
dignities,  and  who  gave  the  most  unquestionable  evidence  of 
attachment  to  her  constitution.  Those  which  we  have  detailed, 
however,  are  abundantly  sufficient.  They  prove  that  Presbyte- 
rians are  not  alone  in  considering  the  fathers  as  favourable  to  the 
doctrine  of  ministerial  parity  ;  that  the  great  body  of  the  reformers, 
and  other  witnesses  for  the  truth,  in  different  ages  and  nations, 
were,  in  the  opinion  of  enlightened  Episcopalians,  friends  and 
advocates  of  the  same  doctrine  ;  that  the  notion  of  the  exclusive 
and  unalterable  divine  right  of  diocesan  episcopacy,  has  been  not 
only  rejected,  but  even  reprobated,  by  some  of  the  greatest  divines 
of  the  church  of  England,  in  more  indignant  and  severe  language 
than  I  have  permitted  myself  to  use  in  the  preceding  pages  ;  and 
that  the  most  competent  judges  have  considered  a  large  majority 
of  the  English  clergy,  at  all  periods  since  the  reformation,  as  ad- 
vocates of  the  constitution  of  their  national  church,  not  on  the 
principle  of  divine  right,  but  of  human  expediency. 


(   183    ) 


LETTER  VIII. 


RISE  AND  PROGRESS  OF  PRELACY. 


CHRISTIAN  BRETHREN, 

WHEN  we  have  proved  that  the  apostolic  church  existed  with- 
out diocesan  "Bishops,  we  have  done  enough.  No  matter  how 
soon  after  the  death  of  the  apostles,  and  the  close  of  the  sacred 
canon,  such  an  order  of  ministers  was  introduced.  Whether  the 
introduction  of  this  order  were  affected  in  four  years,  or  four 
centuries  after  that  period,  it  equally  rests  on  human  authority 
alone,  and  is  to  be  treated  as  a  mere  contrivance  and  command- 
ment of  men.  We  cannot  too  often  repeat,  nor  too  diligently 
keep  in  view,  that  the  authority  of  Christ  can  be  claimed  for  noth- 
ing which  is  not  found,  in  some  form,  in  his  own  word. 

But  our  episcopal  brethren,  forgetting  this  great  principle  of  the 
reformation,  when  we  acknowledge  that  prelacy  existed  in  the 
fourth  century,  attempt  to  found  on  this  fact  an  argument  in  favour 
of  their  cause.  Their  argument  is  this  :  "  Bishops,  as  an  order 
"  superior  to  presbyters,  are  confessed  to  have  existed  in  the  fourth 
"  century.  Now  in  what  manner  shall  we  account  for  the  intro- 
"  Auction  of  such  an  order  ?  Can  any  man  believe  that  it  was  an 
"  innovation  foisted  in  by  human  ambition  within  the  first  three 
"  hundred  years  ?  Is  it  supposable  that  men  of  so  much  piety, 
"  self-denial,  and  zeal,  as  the  ministers  of  the  primitive  church  are 
"  generally  represented  to  have  been,  would  be  disposed  to  usurp 
"  an  unscriptural  authority  ?  Had  they  any  temptation  to  do  this, 
"  when,  by  gaining  ecclesiastical  pre-eminence,  they  only  became 
"  more  obnoxious  to  the  fury  of  persecution  ?  But  even  supposing 
"  them  to  have  been  so  ambitious  and  unprincipled  as  to  attempt 


184  LETTER  VIII. 

"  this  encroachment  on  the  rights  of  others,  can  we  imagine  that 
"  such  an  attempt  would  have  been  successful  ?  Would  the  rest  of 
"  the  clergy  have  quietly  submitted  to  the  usurpation  ?  Would  the 
"people  have  endured  it  ?  In  a  word,  is  it  credible  that  so  great  a 
"  change  should  have  taken  place  in  the  constitution  of  the  church, 
"  without  opposition,  without  noise,  without  leaving  in  the  records 
"  of  antiquity  some  traces  of  the  steps  by  which  it  was  accom- 
"  plished  ?  No ;  it  is  not  credible.  It  is  impossible.  The  infer- 
"  ence  then  is,  that  no  such  alteration  ever  took  place ;  that  bish- 
"  ops,  as  an  order  superior  to  presbyters,  have  existed  in  the 
"  Christian  church  from  the  beginning,  and  consequently  are  of 
"  apostolical  origin."  This  is  the  substance  of  an  argument,  which 
the  celebrated  Chittingworth  ventures  to  style  "  demonstration,"* 
and  on  which  great  stress  has  been  laid  by  all  succeeding  episcopal 
writers. 

But  to  invalidate  this  reasoning,  which  scarcely  deserves  to  be 
called  specious,  nothing  more  is  necessary  than  a  little  attention  to 
a  few  plain  facts.  From  these  facts  it  will  appear,  that,  consider- 
ing the  character  and  circumstances  of  the  church,  from  the 
close  of  the  second  to  the  beginning  of  the  fourth  century,  nothing 
was  more  likely  to  happen  than  such  an  usurpation  and  change 
as  are  here  supposed :  That  changes  quite  as  inconsistent  with 
primitive  purity,  and  quite  as  likely  to  excite  opposition  and  noise, 
are  acknowledged  on  all  hands,  actually  to  have  taken  place  during 
that  period,  without  our  being  able  to  find  in  the  records  of  anti- 
quity, any  distinct  account  of  the  manner  in  which  they  were 
introduced :  and  that,  notwithstanding  every  plausible  theory  to 
the  contrary,  there  is  abundant  evidence  that  the  precise  change 
which  our  opponents  pronounce  impossible,  did,  in  fact,  gradually 
gain  admittance  into  the  church,  after  the  close  of  the  second 
century,  and  produced  an  important  revolution  in  its  aspect  and 
government. 

The  desire  of  pre-eminence  and  of  power  is  natural  to  man.     It 

*  It  is  not  meant  to  be  asserted  that  Chillingworth  was  the  first  writer 
who  stated  and  urged  this  argument.  It  is  of  popish  origin,  and,  among 
others,  was  employed  with  great  confidence  by  Bellarmine,  against  the 
protestants  of  his  day  in  support  of  prelacy,  and  several  other  corrup- 
tions of  the  church  of  Rome.  See  his  work  De  Notis  Ecclesise.  Lib.  4. 
cap.  5. 


RISE  AND  PROGRESS   OF  PRELACY.  185 

is  one  of  the  most  early,  powerful,  and  universal  principles  of  our 
nature.  It  reigns  without  control  in  wicked  men,  and  has  more 
influence  than  it  ought  in  the  minds  of  the  most  pious.  Accord- 
ingly, we  find  the  criminal  operation  of  this  principle  disclosing 
itself  even  under  the  eye  of  our  Saviour  himself.  The  sons  of 
Zebedee,  filled  with  ambition,  came  to  their  Lord  with  a  formal 
request,  that  they  might  be  promoted  to  places  of  distinguished 
rank  in  his  kingdom.  Mark  x,  37.  And  even  on  that  solemn 
night  in  which  Christ  was  betrayed,  when  he  had  just  dispensed 
to  the  twelve  apostles  the  sacrament  of  the  last  supper,  and  had 
informed  them  that  the  hour  of  his  departure  was  at  hand  ;  when 
they  were  still  seated  in  his  presence,  and  might  be  expected  to 
be  under  the  influence  of  all  the  devout  and  humble  feelings  which 
such  a  scene,  and  such  a  disclosure,  were  calculated  to  inspire, 
there  was  a  strife  among  them,  which  of  them  should  be  accounted 
the  greatest.  Luke  xxii.  24.  The  same  principle  continued  to 
manifest  itself  after  the  ascension  of  the  Saviour.  The  apostles 
repeatedly  caution  the  ministers  of  their  day  against  a  spirit  of 
covetousness  and  ambition,  and  especially  against  lording  it  over 
God's  heritage;  plainly  intimating,  either  that  in  the  midst  of  all 
the  persecution  to  which  the  church  was  exposed,  they  perceived 
such  a  criminal  disposition  arising  ;  or  that  they  foresaw  that  it 
was  likely  to  arise.  The  Apostle  Paul  more  than  once  represents 
himself  as  called  to  struggle  with  the  ambitious  pretensions  of 
Christian  ministers,  who  sought  unduly  to  exalt  themselves :  and 
the  apostle  John  informs  us,  that  a  certain  Diotrephet,  who  loved 
to  have  the  pre-eminence  in  the  church,  violently  opposed  the 
apostolic  ministry,  because  he  considered  it  as  unfavourable  to  his 
plans  of  selfishness  and  domination.  If  such  a  disposition  were 
exhibited  while  the  apostles  were  still  alive ;  while  the  gifts  of 
inspiration  and  miracles  were  still  enjoyed  by  the  church ;  and 
while  the  precepts  and  example  of  the  Saviour  were  so  fresh  in 
the  memory  of  his  people,  what  might  not  have  been  expected  to 
appear  in  three  centuries  afterwards,  when  the  state  of  the  church 
exhibited,  in  almost  every  respect,  a  lamentable  degeneracy  ? 

We  are  accustomed  to  look  back  to  the  first  ages  of  the  church 

with  a  veneration  nearly  bordering  on  superstition.     It  answered 

the  purposes  of  popery,  to  refer  all  their  corruptions  to  primitive 

times,  and  to  represent  those  times  as  exhibiting  the  models  of  all 

2  A 


186  LETTER  VIII. 

excellence.  But  every  representaton  of  this  kind  must  be  received 
with  distrust.  The  Christian  church,  during  the  apostolic  age,  and 
for  half  a  century  afterwards,  did  indeed  present  a  venerable  aspect. 
Persecuted  by  the  world,  on  every  side,  she  was  favoured  in  an 
uncommon  measure  with  the  presence  and  spirit  of  her  divine  Head, 
and  exhibited  a  degree  of  simplicity  and  purity,  which  has,  perhaps, 
never  since  been  equalled.  But  before  the  close  of  the  second  cen- 
tury, the  scene  began  to  change ;  and  before  the  commencement 
of  ihe  fourth,  a  deplorable  corruption  of  doctrine,  discipline,  and 
morals,  had  crept  into  the  church,  and  disfigured  the  body  of 
Christ.  Hegesippm.  an  ecclesiastical  historian,  who  wrote  in  the 
second  century,  declares  that  the  virgin  purity  of  the  church  was 
confined  to  the  days  of  the  apostles.  Nay,  Jerome  tells  us,  that 
"  the  primitive  churches  were  tainted  with  gross  errors,  while  the 
"  apostles  were  alive,  and  the  blood  of  Christ  yet  warm  in  Judea." 
Cyprian,  in  the  third  century,  complained  of  universal  depravity 
among  the  clergy,  as  well  as  the  laity.  He  declares, "  We  observe 
"  not  the  will  of  the  Lord,  having  all  our  mind  and  study  set  upon 
"  lucre  and  possessions,  are  given  to  pride,  full  of  emulation  and 
"  dissension,  and  void  of  simplicity  and  faithful  dealing."  And 
again,  the  same  writer  complains,  that  "  the  priests  had  no  devo- 
"  tion,  the  deacons  no  fidelity  ;  that  there  was  no  charity  in  works, 
"  no  discipline  in  manners."  Eusebius,  describing  the  state  of  the 
church  towards  the  close  of  the  third  century,  gives  the  following 
representation.  "  Bishops  rushed  against  bishops.  Most  detest- 
"  able  hypocrisy  and  dissimulation  advanced  even  to  the  very  height 
«  of  wickedness.  We  were  not  touched  with  any  sense  of  the 
"  divine  judgment  creeping  in  upon  us,  nor  used  any  endeavours 
"  to  regain  his  favour ;  but  wickedly  thinking  that  God  neither 
ct  did  regard  nor  would  visit  our  crimes,  we  heaped  one  wicked-  . 
"  ness  upon  another.  Those  who  seemed  to  be  our  pastors,  reject- 
"  ing  the  rule  of  piety,  were  inflamed  with  mutual  contentions  against 
one  another  ;  and  while  they  were  only  taken  up  with  contentions, 
"  threatenings,  emulation,  mutual  hatred,  and  enmity,  every  one 
«  eagerly  pursued  his  ambition  in  a  tyrannical  manner.'' 

After  such  descriptions  as  these,  let  us  hear  no  more  of  the  primi- 
tive church  being  so  pure,  and  all  her  ministers  so  humble  and 
disinterested,  as  to  preclude  the  probability  of  any  of  them  being 
actuated  by  ambition,  or  disposed  to  usurp  unscriptural  authority. 


RISE  AND  PROGRESS  OF  PRELACY.  187 

All  authentic  history  shows  that  such  a  conclusion  is  as  false  in 
fact,  as  it  is  inconsistent  with  the  uniform  character  of  human 
nature.  Yes  ;  that  mystery  of  iniquity  which  began  to  work 
under  the  ministry  of  our  Saviour  himself,  and  which  retarded  the 
growth  of  the  church,  while  it  was  watered  with  the  tears  and  the 
blood  of  the  apostles,  might  be  expected  to  prove,  as  it  did,  in  a 
much  greater  degree,  her  bane,  in  after  times.  But,  perhaps  it 
will  be  said,  that,  although  some  of  the  clergy  in  the  second  and 
third  centuries,  were  ambitious,  and  disposed  to  usurp  unscriptural 
power  5  yet  we  cannot  suppose  that  their  claims  would  have  been 
calmly  yielded,  and  their  usurpations  submitted  to  without  a  strug- 
gle, by  the  other  clergy,  and  by  the  body  of  the  people.  If,  then, 
such  claims  were  made,  and  such  usurpations  effected,  why  do  we 
not  find  in  the  early  history  of  the  church,  some  account  of  changes 
so  memorable,  and  of  conflicts  so  dreadful,  as  must  have  attended 
their  introduction  ? 

In  answer  to  this  question,  let  it  be  remembered,  that  the  nations 
over  which  the  Christian  religion  was  spread  with  so  much  rapi- 
dity during  the  first  three  centuries,  were  sunk  in  deplorable 
ignorance.  Grossly  illiterate,  very  few  were  able  to  read  5  and 
even  to  these  few,  manuscripts  were  of  difficult  access.  At  that 
period,  popular  eloquence  was  the  great  engine  of  persuasion  ;  and 
where  ihe  character  of  the  mind  is  not  fixed  by  reading,  and  a 
consequent  habit  of  attention  and  accurate  thinking,  it  is  impossible 
to  say  how  deeply  and  suddenly  it  may  be  operated  upon  by  such 
an  engine.  A  people  of  this  description,  wholly  unaccustomed  to 
speculations  on  government ;  universally  subjected  to  despotic  rule 
in  the  state  ;  having  no  just  ideas  of  religious  liberty  ;  altogether 
unfurnished  with  the  means  of  communicating  and  uniting  with 
each  other,  which  the  art  of  printing  has  since  afforded  ;  torn  with 
dissensions  among  themselves,  and  liable  to  be  turned  about  with 
every  wind  of  doctrine,  such  a  people  could  offer  little  resistance 
to  those  who  were  ambitious  of  ecclesiastical  power.  A  fairer 
opportunity  for  the  few  to  take  the  advantage  of  the  ignorance,  the 
credulity,  the  divisions,  and  the  weakness  of  the  many,  can  scarcely 
be  imagined.  In  truth,  under  these  circumstances,  ecclesiastical 
usurpation  is  so  far  from  being  improbable  ;  that,  to  suppose  it  not 
to  have  taken  place,  would  be  to  suppose  a  continued  miracle. 

Nor  is  there  more  difficulty  in  supposing  that  these  encroach- 


188  LETTER  VIIL 

ments  were  submitted  to  by  the  clergy,  than  by  the  people.  Some 
yielded  through  fear  of  the  bold  and  domineering  spirits  who  con- 
tended for  seats  of  honour  ;  some  with  the  hope  of  obtaining 
preferment  themselves  in  their  turn  ;  and  some  from  that  lethargy 
and  sloth  which  ever  prevent  a  large  portion  of  mankind  from 
engaging  in  any  thing  which  requires  enterprise  and  exertion.  To 
these  circumstances  it  may  be  added,  that,  while  some  of  the 
presbyters,  under  the  name  of  bishops,  assumed  unscriptural 
authority  over  the  rest  of  that  order  ;  the  increasing  power  of  the 
latter  over  the  deacons,  and  other  subordinate  grades  of  church 
officers,  offered  something  like  a  recompense  for  their  submission  to 
those  who  claimed  a  power  over  themselves. 

In  addition  to  all  these  circumstances,  it  is  to  be  recollected,  that 
the  encroachments  and  the  change  in  question  took  place  gradually. 
When  great  strides  in  the  assumption  of  power  are  suddenly 
made,  they  seldom  fail  to  rouse  resentment,  and  excite  opposition. 
But  when  made  artfully,  and  by  slow  degrees,  nothing  is  more 
common  than  to  see  them  pass  without  opposition,  and  almost 
without  notice.  Instances  of  this  kind  among  nations  sunk  in 
ignorance,  and  long  accustomed  to  despotic  government,  are 
numberless  ;  and  they  are  by  no  means  rare  even  among  the  more 
enlightened.  The  British  nation,  in  the  seventeeth  century,  saw  a 
monarch  restored  with  enthusiasm,  and  almost  without  opposition, 
to  the  throne,  by  those  very  persons,  who,  a  few  years  before,  had 
declared  the  bitterest  hatred  to  royalty.  At  the  beginning  of  the 
nineteenth  century,  one  of  the  most  enlightened  nations  of  Europe, 
in  a  little  more  than  twelve  years  after  dethroning  and  decapitating 
a  mild  and  gentle  king,  and,  after  denouncing  kingly  government 
with  almost  every  possible  expression  of  abhorrence,  yielded, 
without  a  struggle,  to  the  will  of  a  despotic  usurper.  And,  still 
more  recently,  we  have  seen  a  people,  enlightened  and  free,  who 
had  for  more  than  two  centuries  maintained  and  boasted  of  their 
republican  character,  submit  ignobly  and  at  once,  to  the  yoke  of  a 
monarch  imposed  on  them  by  a  powerful  neighbour.  In  short,  the 
most  limited  knowledge  of  human  nature,  and  of  history,  shows 
not  only  the  possibility,  but  the  actual  and  frequent  occurrence 
of  changes  from  free  government  to  tyranny  and  despotism,  in  a 
much  shorter  period  than  a  century  ;  and  all  this  in  periods  when 
information  was  more  equally  diffused,  and  the  principles  of  social 


RISE   AND  PROGRESS  OF  PRELACY.  189 

order  much  better  understood,  than  in  the  second  and  third  centu- 
ries of  the  Christian  aera. 

But  we  may  go  a  step  further.  It  is  not  only  manifest,  that  the 
state  of  the  church  and  of  the  world,  at  the  period  in  question,  was 
such  as  to  render  the  progress  of  doctrinal  corruption,  and  of 
clerical  domination  probable,  but  it  is  on  all  hands  acknowledged, 
that  such  corruption  and  domination,  did,  in  fact,  take  place.  In 
support  of  this  assertion,  many  instances  might  be  produced  ;  but 
I  shall  content  myself  with  a  few  of  the  most  remarkable. 

The  administering  the  Lord's  supper  to  infants,  was  a  corrup- 
tion which  early  arose  in  the  church.  It  is  certain  that  this 
corruption  existed  in  the  second  century.  Cyprian,  in  the  third 
century,  speaks  of  it  not  as  a  new  thing,  but  as  an  ordinary  prac- 
tice. Augustin,  some  time  afterwards,  calls  it  an  apostolical  tradi- 
tion, represents  it  as  a  general  custom,  and  expressly  founds  the 
propriety  and  necessity  of  it  on  John  vi.  53.  And  this  practice 
prevailed  so  long,  that  Bishop  Bossuet,  in  a  treatise  on  the 
communion,  traces  it  down  to  the  twelfth  century.  Now  that  this 
practice  had  no  foundation,  either  in  scripture  or  apostolic  example, 
is  conceded  by  almost  the  whole  Christian  world.  How,  then, 
shall  we  account  for  its  introduction  and  general  adoption  in  the 
church  ?  Can  any  one  tell  when  it  was  introduced  ?  By  whom  ? 
Whether  it  met  with  any  opposition  ?  Whether  among  the  faith- 
ful of  that  day,  any  church  refused  to  adopt  it  ?  And  why  we  are 
not  able  to  find  in  all  antiquity,  an  account  of  any  disputes  and 
struggles  which  took  place  on  this  subject  ?  I  will  venture  to  say 
that  no  man  can  give  any  authentic  and  satisfactory  information  on 
any  of  these  points.  Of  course,  on  the  principal  assumed  by  our 
episcopal  brethren,  we  are  compelled  to  conclude,  that  this  practice 
was  not  an  innovation,  but  derived  from  the  apostles.  This  case 
is  even  stronger  than  that  which  it  is  brought  to  illustrate  ;  for  as, 
on  the  one  hand,  there  was  less  temptation,  on  the  ordinary  prin- 
ciples of  human  nature,  to  adopt  this  unscriptural  abuse  of  the 
eucharist,  than  to  contrive  and  extend  ecclesiastical  domination ; 
so,  on  the  other,  it  was  more  likely  to  strike  the  mind  at  once  with 
disgust,  and  to  make  an  unfavourable  impression  on  the  mass  of 
the  people. 

Another  instance  of  acknowledged,  and  most  remarkable  usurp- 


190  LETTER  V1I1. 

ation,  within  the  period  which  we  are  considering,  is  the  pre-emi- 
nence which  archbishops  and  metropolitans  claimed  over  the 
ordinary  bishops.  All  protestant  episcopalians  allow  that  bishops 
are,  by  divine  right,  equal;  and,  of  course,  that  archbishops, 
metropolitans,  and  patriarchs,  are  grades  of  mere  human  invention. 
But  it  is  certain  that  an  inequality  of  rank  among  bishops  began  to 
take  place  in  the  church  so  early,  became  in  a  little  while  so  gene- 
ral, and  was  introduced  with  so  little  opposition  and  noise,  that 
some  have  undertaken,  on  this  very  ground,  to  prove  that  it  was  of 
apostolical  origin.  Yet  our  opponents  in  this  controversy,  with  one 
voice  allow,  that  no  warrant  is  to  be  found  for  it  either  in  Scripture 
or  in  primitive  practice.  How  then  (to  adopt  their  own  argu- 
ment) was  this  inequality  introduced  ?  Can  we  suppose  that  any 
of  the  pious  bishops  began  to  be  so  early  infected  with  ambition  as 
to  usurp  unscriptural  authority  ?  Or  can  we  suppose  that  the  other 
bishops  would  quietly  submit  to  such  usurpation?  No;  on  the 
principles  of  episcopal  reasoning,  we  must  conclude  that  no  such 
usurpation  was  possible  ;  and  that  archbishops,  and  metropolitans 
existed  from  the  beginning.  But  how  does  the  mist  of  false  theory 
vanish  before  the  light  of  truth  and  fact ! 

Closely  connected  with  the  introduction  of  archbishops,  and 
other  grades,  in  the  episcopal  office,  is  the  rise  and  progress  of  the 
papacy.  It  is  certain  that  the  antichristian  claims  of  the  bishop 
,of  Rome  were  begun  before  the  close  of  the  second  century.  The 
writings  of  Irenceus  and  Tertullian,  both  furnish  abundant  evidence 
of  this  fact.  Yet  the  records  of  antiquity  give  so  little  information 
respecting  the  various  steps  by  which  this  "  man  of  sin"  rose  to  the 
possession  of  his  power ;  they  contain  so  little  evidence  of  any 
efficient  opposition  to  his  claims;  and  represent  the  submission  of 
the  other  bishops  as  being  so  early  and  general,  that  the  papists 
attempt,  from  these  circumstances,  to  prove  the  divine  origin  of 
their  system.  Yet  what  protestant  is  there  who  does  not  reject 
this  reasoning  as  totally  fallacious,  and  conclude  that  the  supremacy 
of  the  bishop  of  Rome  is  an  unscriptural  usurpation  ?  And  although 
the  most  impartial  and  learned  divines  may  and  do  differ  among 
themselves  in  fixing  the  several  dates  of  the  rise,  progress,  and 
establishment  of  this  great  spiritual  usurper ;  yet  the  fact,  that  he 
did  thus  rise,  and  advance,  and  erect  a  tyrannical  throne  in  the 
church,  contrary  to  all  that  might  have  been  expected  both  from 


RISE  AND  PROGRESS  OF  PRELACY.  191 

the  piety  and  the  selfishness  of  the  early  Christians,  is  doubted  by 
none. 

Scarcely  less  remarkable,  or  in  itself  improbable,  was  the  change 
which  early  took  place  in  the  mode  of  electing  and  installing  the 
pastors  of  the  church.  You  have  been  informed  in  preceding  parts 
of  this  work,  that,  as  each  bishop,  in  the  primitive  church,  was  the 
pastor  of  a  single  congregation ;  so  every  bishop  was  elected  by 
the  people  of  his  charge,  and  ordained  to  the  work  of  the  ministry 
in  their  presence.  It  is  certain,  however,  that  at  least  as  early  as 
the  fourth  century,  this  power  of  electing  their  own  bishops  began 
to  be  gradually  taken  away  from  the  people ;  and  that  in  the  course 
of  two  or  three  centuries  afterwards,  the  privilege  was  almost  wholly 
withdrawn  from  them.  But  how  came  a  right  so  popular,  and  so 
highly  prized,  to  be  tamely  surrendered?  And  why  is  it  thai  the 
records  of  antiquity  furnish  so  little  information  on  this  subject; 
insomuch  that  we  scarcely  know  any  thing  more  than  the  two 
great  facts,  that  this  right  of  popular  election  was  once  enjoyed, 
and  that  it  was  soon  afterwards  taken  away  ?  It  is  of  little  import- 
ance how  these  questions  may  be  answered  by  different  theorists. 
It  is  enough  for  us  to  know  that  the  facts  are  established  ;  and  that 
the  same  principles  of  reasoning  apply  to  this  case,  as  to  the  main 
point  in  dispute  with  our  episcopal  brethren. 

The  abolition  of  the  office  of  ruling  elder,  through  the  greater 
part  of  the  Christian  world,  is  another  signal  instance  of  early  de- 
parture from  the  model  of  the  primitive  church.  The  New  Testa- 
ment speaks  of  this  class  of  officers  as  existing  in  the  apostolic  age. 
Several  early  writers  of  reputation,  as  we  have  seen,  allude  to  them ; 
and  Hilary,  who  wrote  in  the  fourth  century,  expressly  declares, 
that  they  once  existed  in  the  church,  but  were  gradually  discon- 
tinued. And,  though  he  professes  not  to  be  able  fully  to  explain  the 
reason  of  their  falling  into  disuse,  yet  he  refers  it  to  the  pride  and 
ambition  of  the  clergy,  who  were  unwilling  to  have  officers  of  this 
class  sitting  with  them,  and  judging  in  the  affairs  of  the  church. 
Here  a  difficulty  occurs  quite  as  great,  and  of  the  same  kind  as  that 
which  our  episcopal  brethren  urge  in  the  case  before  us.  How 
shall  we  account  for  these  elders  consenting  to  be  deprived  of  their 
office,  and  banished  from  the  church  ?  How  shall  we  account  for 
thepeopfe  yielding  to  this  encroachment  on  their  rights ;  could  a 
change  so  important  and  extensive  have  taken  place  without  a 


192  LETTER  VIII. 

struggle  ?  Why  is  it,  then,  that  we  find  no  account  of  this  struggle 
in  the  records  of  antiquity  ?  We  may  not  be  able  to  return  decisive 
and  satisfactory  answers  to  these  questions  :  but  the  great  fact,  that 
the  change  to  which  they  refer,  did  take  place ;  and  that  it  was 
effected  gradually,  and  without  any  violent  struggle,  at  least  so  far 
as  history  has  informed  us,  are  truths  abundantly  established. 

This  enumeration  of  early  departures  from  primitive  purity, 
might  be  greatly  extended,  were  it  either  necessary,  or  consistent 
with  our  limits.  I  might  show,  that  before  the  close  of  the  second 
century,  sub-deacons,  acolythes,  exorcists,  and  other  officers  of 
inferior  grade,  who  had  no  place  in  the  apostolic  church,  were 
introduced  by  human  pride  and  folly,  and  employed  as  means  of 
elevating  the  clergy,  and  of  placing  them  at  a  greater  distance  from 
the  people,  When  these  unauthorized  offices  were  first  instituted, 
we  are  no  where  informed.  By  whom  or  by  what  means  they  were 
introduced,  we  are  equally  ignorant.  But  the  fact,  that  they  did 
creep  into  the  church  without  any  other  than  human  authority,  is 
undeniable. 

All  these  deviations  from  primitive  usage  took  place  at  an 
early  period.  They  were  of  a  nature  calculated  to  interest  the 
feelings  both  of  the  clergy  and  of  the  people,  and  to  excite  long 
and  violent  opposition  from  various  quarters.  Yet  the  records  of 
antiquity  give  us  no  satisfactory  information  concerning  any  such 
opposition,  or  the  steps  by  which  these  innovations  were  introduced. 
Now  what  good  reason  can  be  assigned,  why  that  particular  kind 
of  clerical  usurpation  which  Presbyterians  assert  to  have  taken 
place,  should  appear  more  improbable  and  incredible,  than  the 
instances  of  similar  usurpation  which  are  universally  acknow- 
ledged ?  Does  not  every  man  of  common  sense  see  that  the  former 
was  quite  as  likely  to  happen  as  the  latter?  Nay,  is  it  not  evident 
that  some  of  the  latter  are  much  more  difficult  to  be  accounted  for 
than  the  former  ?  Yes  5  precisely  the  same  reasoning  that  will 
enable  us  to  account  for  the  introduction  of  archbishops,  for  the 
abolition  of  the  office  of  ruling  elders,  and  for  the  discontinuance 
of  the  popular  election  of  bishops,  will  also  enable  us  with  even 
more  ease,  to  explain  the  fact,  that  some  of  the  pastors  of  the 
churches,  within  an  hundred  years  after  the  apostolic  age,  should 
succeed  in  gradually  encroaching  on  the  rights  of  their  equals,  and 


RISE   AND   PROGRESS  OF   PRELACY.          193 

in  appropriating  to  themselves  titles  and  honours  which  originally 
belonged  to  every  pastor. 

Nor  is  it  wonderful  that  we  find  so  little  said  concerning  these 
usurpations  in  the  early  records  of  antiquity.  There  was  probably 
but  little  written  on  the  subject  5  since  those  who  were  most 
ambitious  to  shine  as  writers,  were  most  likely  to  be  forward  in 
making  unscriptural  claims  themselves ;  and,  of  course,  would  be 
little  disposed  to  record  their  own  shame.  It  is  likewise  probable, 
that  the  little  that  was  written  on  such  a  subject,  would  be  lost ; 
because  the  art  of  printing  being  unknown,  and  the  trouble  and 
expense  of  multiplying  copies  being  only  incurred  for  the  sake  of 
possessing  interesting  and  popular  works,  it  was  not  to  be  expect- 
ed, that  writings  so  hostile  to  the  ambition  and  vices  of  the  clergy, 
would  be  much  read,  if  it  were  possible  to  suppress  them.  And 
when  to  these  circumstances  we  add,  that  literature,  after  the  fourth 
century,  was  chiefly  in  the  hands  of  ecclesiastics  ;  that  many 
important  works  written  within  the  first  three  centuries  are  known 
to  be  lost ;  and  that  of  the  few  which  remain,  some  are  acknow- 
ledged on  all  hands,  to  have  been  grossly  corrupted,  and  radically 
mutilated,  we  cannot  wonder  that  so  little  in  explanation  of  the 
various  steps  of  clerical  usurpation  has  reached  our  times. 

I  have  now  shown,  that  a  change  in  the  character  and  powers 
of  some  of  the  primitive  bishops  was  possible,  and  even  probable. 
I  have  shown  that  changes  quite  as  likely  to  be  vigorously  resisted, 
and  to  occupy  a  large  space  in  the  early  history  of  the  church, 
were  in  fact  early  introduced,  without  any  proof  of  such  resistance 
being  found  in  the  scanty  and  mutilated  records  of  antiquity. 
We  are  under  no  obligation  to  go  further.  What  has  been  said  is 
abundantly  sufficient  to  refute  the  episcopal  argument.  If  prelati- 
cal  bishops  are  no  where  to  be  found  in  scripture,  but  are  found  in 
the  records  of  the  fourth  century  ;  then  to  show  that  their  introduc- 
tion, within  the  first  three  hundred  years  was  practicable,  is  all 
that  a  reasonable  Episcopalian  can  demand.  But  this,  though 
sufficient  to  silence  our  opponents,  may  not  satisfy  an  inquisitive 
antiquarian.  It  remains,  then,  to  take  one  step  further,  and  to 
show,  that  the  change  which  has  been  proved  to  be  practicable, 
and  even  probable,  did  actually  take  place:  that  it  is  not  a  mere 
hypothesis,  adopted  without  evidence,  but  a  matter  of  fact,  which 
the  historian  ought  not  to  overlook,  even  if  it  were  wholly  uncon- 
2  B 


194  LETTER    VIII. 

nected  with  modern  controversies.  The  proof  of  this  fact  shall  be 
drawn  from  the  following  sources  : 

First;  From  a  comparison  of  the  general  language  of  scripture, 
and  the  writers  of  the  first  two  centuries,  concerning  bishops,  with 
the  general  language  used  on  the  same  subject  in  the  fourth 
century.  We  have  before  shown,  that  in  the  New  Testament, 
the  titles  bishop  and  presbyter  are  indiscriminately  applied  to  the 
same  persons;  and  that  no  style  of  expression  is  employed  by  the 
Spirit  of  God,  which  gives  the  least  intimation  that  bishops  were  an* 
order  distinct  from,  and  superior  io,presbytersm  the  apostolic  age. 
We  have  shown,  that  the  same  indiscriminate  application  of  scrip- 
tural titles,  and  the  same  language  expressive  of  ministerial  parity, 
are  found,  with  scarcely  any  exception,  in  all  the  authentic  writings 
of  the  first  two  hundred  years.  It  is  not  necessary  here  to  repeat 
the  proof  of  these  positions.  They  will  therefore  be  assumed  as 
established  points.  But  in  the  writings  of  the  third  century,  we 
begin  to  perceive  a  style  of  expression  indicating  the  commence- 
ment of  a  distinction  between  bishops  and  presbyters  ;  and  in  the 
fourth  and  fifth  centuries,  we  find  this  distinction  strongly  and 
generally  marked.  In  short,  that,  in  the  course  of  the  first  three 
hundred  years  after  Christ,  there  was  gradually  introduced  a 
remarkable  change  of  language,  in  speaking  of  the  titles  and  powers 
of  Christian  ministers,  is  admitted,  not  only  by  a  great  majority  of 
ecclesiastical  historians,  and  of  other  learned  men,  but  also  by 
many  of  the  best  informed,  and  most  impartial  Episcopalians  them- 
selves. Now  whence  did  this  change  in  the  current  language  of 
that  period  arise  ?  Not  from  accident,  nor  from  the  caprice  of  a 
few  individuals.  Neither  of  these  would  be  sufficient  to  account 
for  a  change  so  important  and  extensive.  It  arose  evidently  from 
a  change  in  the  nature  of  the  offices  expressed  by  this  language. 
It  arose  from  the  fact,  that  in  the  apostolic  age,  and  for  more  than 
a  hundred  years  afterwards,  prelatical  bishops  had  no  existence; 
and  that  in  the  fourth  century,  this  class  of  officers,  as  a  distinct 
order,  had  been  introduced,  and  of  course,  required  new  distinc- 
tions, or  a  new  use  of  terms  and  titles  to  designate  their  character. 

Secondly  ;  That  bishops,  as  an  order  of  clergy  superior  to 
presbyters,  were  introduced  after  the  apostolic  age,  and  without 
any  divine  warrant,  may  also  be  established  by  the  declarations  of 
several  approved  writers,  who  lived  near  the  time  when  this  change 


RISE  AND   PROGRESS  OF  PRELACY.  195 

occurred,  and  who  expressly  assert  that  it  took  place.  The  quota- 
tions  from  Jerome,  Hilary,  Chrysostom,  &c.  detailed  in  \\\e  fifth 
letter,  are  equally  clear  and  decisive  on  this  subject.  The  decla- 
rations of  Jerome,  in  particular,  are  so  pointed  and  unquestionable, 
so  formally  stated,  and  repeated  in  such  a  variety  of  forms,  that 
they  must  silence  even  prejudice  and  sophistry  themselves.  Were 
not  these  learned  men  as  likely  to  understand  the  subject  on  which 
they  wrote  as  any  of  the  present  day  ?  It  is  credible  that  they 
should  be  totally  deceived  concerning  a  fact,  which,  if  it  did  not 
fall  under  their  own  observation,  must  have  been  personally 
witnessed  by  their  immediate  predecessors  ?  It  is  not  credible. 
Yet  unless  we  suppose  these  writers  to  have  been  either  deceived 
or  dishonest,  the  Presbyterian  or  apostolic  form  of  church  govern- 
ment, was  gradually  set  aside  and  gave  place  to  prelacy,  within 
three  hundred  and  fifty  years  after  Christ. 

Thirdly ;  On  the  supposition  that  diocesan  episcopacy  was  a 
mere  human  invention,  introduced  long  after  the  apostolic  age,  we 
might  expect  to  find  this  form  of  ecclesiastical  government  first 
embraced  in  populous  and  wealthy  cities,  and  making  its  way 
more  slowly  in  the  remote  and  obscure  parts  of  the  church.  And 
accordingly  we  find  this  to  have  been  precisely  the  fact.  Prelacy 
was  first  introduced  and  organized  in  Borne,  Antioch,  Alexandria, 
Carthage,  &c.  From  these,  as  from  so  many  centres,  it  spread 
into  the  neighbouring  countries,  and  finally  became  general.  But 
in  the  parts  of  the  church  which  were  placed  at  the  greatest  distance 
from  these  seats  of  corruption,  the  reception  of  prelacy  was  con- 
siderably later.  Hilary  and  others  declare,  that  many  of  the 
African  presbyters  continued  'to  exercise  the  ordaining  power 
until  the  middle  of  llie  fourth  century.  The  churches  in  Scotland 
remained  Presbyterian  in  their  government,  from  the  introduction 
of  Christianity  into  that  country,  in  the  second  century,  until  the 
fifth  century,  when  Palladius  succeeded  in  introducing  diocesan 
bishops.*  It  also  appears,  from  the  most  authentic  history,  that  the 
country  churches  generally  maintained  the  primitive  plan  of 
government  much  longer  than  those  of  the  cities,  and  were  from  one 
or  two  centuries  later  in  receiving  episcopacy  as  a  superior  order. 

*  This  fact  is  ascertained  by  the  writings  of  Major,  Fordon,  Boethius, 
8cc.  &c. 


196  LETTER  VIII. 

The  ministers  of  these  country  congregations,  were  called  Cho- 
repiscopi,  or  country  bishops.  They  continued  to  exercise  full 
episcopal  powers  a  considerable  time  after  the  presbyters  within 
and  near  the  great  cities  had  become  subject  to  diocesans;  until 
at  length  the  influence  of  the  bishop  of  Rome,  and  of  some  other 
ambitious  prelates,  procured  a  decree  of  the  council  of  Sardis  to 
suppress  the  chorepiscopi  entirely.*  The  churches  of  the  valleys 
in  Savoy  and  Piedmont,  were  still  more  successful  in  supporting 
primitive  episcopacy.  Although  they  retained  the  term  bishop  in 
its  original  meaning,  yet  they  rejected  the  government  of  prelatical 
bishops,  as  well  as  the  authority  of  the  pope,  and  continued  to  set 
an  example  of  ministerial  parity  for  many  centuries.  All  these 
circumstances  prove  that  diocesan  episcopacy  was  an  innovation. 
If  it  had  been  the  apostolical  model,  and  especially  if  it  had  been 
deemed  so  important  and  fundamental  as  our  opponents  represent 
it  to  be,  then  those  churches  which  were  most  remote  from  worldly 
influence,  and  discovered  the  greatest  love  for  primitive  simplicity, 
would  have  been  ever  found  adhering  to  the  system  of  prelacy  with 
peculiar  zeal.  Instead  of  this,  the  more  we  examine  the  records 
of  antiquity,  the  more  we  shall  find  precisely  the  reverse  to  be  the 
fact.  A  circumstance  which  plainly  evinces  that  ministerial 
parity  was  both  the  doctrine  and  practice  of  the  apostolic  age;  and 
that  episcopacy,  in  the  modern  sense  of  the  word,  is  the  invention 
of  man,  and  was  introduced  long  afterwards. 

Fourthly  ;  The  decrees  of  some  of  the  early  councils  concern- 
ing bishops,  clearly  evince  that  such  a  change*as  we  have  supposed, 
really  took  place.  It  is  impossible  to  look  into  the  decrees  of  the 
numerous  councils  which  were  convened  within  the  the  first  five  or 
six  centuries,  without  perceiving  constant  provision  made,  on  the 
one  hand,  for  gradually  extending  the  power  of  the  bishops  ;  and, 
on  the  other,  for  restraining  the  encroachments  of  those  whose 
ambition  had  become  inordinate  and  offensive.  We  find  one 
council  decreeing,  that  bishops  should  no  longer  be  ordained  for 
country  places  or  small  towns  ;  and  that  when  the  then  incumbent 
bishops  of  small  and  obscure  places  should  happen  to  die,  no  suc- 


*  The  reason  given  by  the  council  for  this  decree  is  remarkable: 
Nevilescat  nomen  Episcopi;  5.  e.  lest  the  title  of  bishop  should  become 
too  cheap. 


RISE  AND  PROGRESS  OF  PRELACY.         197 

cessors  should  be  appointed.  We  find  another  enacting  a  canon, 
that  country  bishops  should  no  longer  be  allowed  to  ordain  ;  and 
that  city  presbyters  should  not  be  thereafter  permitted  to  ordain, 
out  of  their  own  parishes,  without  having  the  permission  of  the 
city  bishops:  And  the  reasons  given  for  these  and  other  restric- 
tions, are,  not  the  command  of  Christ ;  not  apostolical  example  ; 
but  that  the  honour  of  the  church  might  be  preserved,  and  that  the 
episcopal  dignity  might  be  maintained.  The  very  existence  of 
these  decrees,  proves  that  presbyters  had  been  before  allowed  to 
ordain  ;  and  that  bishops  were  gradually  undergoing  a  change 
from  the  parochial  to  the  diocesan  character.  In  contrast  with 
these  and  similar  canons,  it  would  be  easy  to  produce  others,  for 
restraining  the  indecent  attempts  of  some  bishops  to  enlarge  their 
dioceses,  and  to  encroach  on  the  limits  of  their  neighbour^.*  If 
we  had  never  heard  of  the  fact  before,  these  canons  woulo  suggest 
the  suspicion,  that  bishops  were  now,  by  little  and  little,  extending 
their  pastoral  care  from  single  congregations  to  extensive  districts. 
Fifthly  ;  The  gradual  diminution  of  the  number  of  bishops, 
after  the  first  three  centuries,  serves  to  confirm  the  fact  for  which  I 
am  contending.  The  great  number  of  bishops  found  in  the  early 
ages  of  the  church,  was  remarked  in  a  former  letter.  They  appear 
to  have  been  as  numerous  within  two  or  three  centuries  of  the 
apostolic  age,  as  modern  parish  ministers.  But  as  we  recede  from 
that  period,  we  find  their  number  gradually  diminishing,  in  exact 
proportion  as  their  claims  and  honours  became  extended.  In  the 
island  of  Crete,  where  we  are  informed  that  in  early  times  there  were 
one  hundred  bishops,  in  a  few  centuries  afterwards  we  find  but 
twelve.  In  a  small  district  in  Asia,  where,  in  the  third  century,  there 
were  settled  one  hundred  and  Jive  bishops,  in  two  or  three  centuries 
their  number  was  reduced  to  nine.  Numerous  instances  of  the  same 
kind  might  be  produced,  were  it  necessary  or  proper.  And  this 
diminution  of  the  number  of  bishops  is  the  more  remarkable, 
because,  at  the  same  time,  the  number  of  converts  to  Christianity, 
the  extent  of  the  church,  and  of  course  the  call  for  ministerial 
labours,  were  daily  increasing.  What  is  the  obvious  inference  from 

*  For  a  more  full  account  than  it  is  possible  to  give  in  this  manual,  of 
these  canons,  and  other  proceedings  of  early  councils,  concerning  the 
powers  of  bishops,  Baxter's  Treatise  of  Episcopacy,  London,  4to.  1681. 
and  the  learned  Clarkson's  Primitive  Episcopacy,  8vo.  1688. 


198  LETTER  VIII. 

these  facts  ?  It  is  that  primitive  bishops  were  a  very  different  class 
of  officers  from  those  which  bore  that  name  three  or  four  centuries 
afterwards ;  and  consequently  that,  during  this  period,  an  impor- 
tant change  had  taken  place  in  the  character  and  powers  of  bishops. 

Finally  ;  It  is  no  small  argument  in  favour  of  the  truth  of  my 
position,  that  it  is  confirmed  by  the  most  learned  and  impartial 
historians,  and  other  competent  judges,  of  modern  times. 

The  first  writer  whom  I  shall  quote  in  proof  of  the  fact  which  I 
am  endeavouring  to  establish,  is  the  learned  Dr.  Mosheim,  a  Lu- 
theran divine,  whose  Ecclesiastical  History  has  been,  for  half  a 
century,  the  theme  of  praise,  for  the  general  impartiality  as  well  as 
erudition  manifested  by  its  author.  In  his  account  of  ihejirst  cen- 
tury, he  has  the  following  remarks.  "  The  rulers  of  the  church  at 
"  this  time,  were  called  either  presbyters  or  bishops,  which  two 
"  titles  are,  in  the  New  Testament,  undoubtedly  applied  to  the  same 
"  order  of  men.  These  were  persons  of  eminent  gravity,  and  such 
"  as  had  distinguished  themselves  by  their  superior  sanctity  and 
"  merit.  Their  particular  functions  were  not  always  the  same ; 
u  for  while  some  of  them  confined  their  labours  to  the  instruction 
"  of  the  people,  others  contributed  in  different  ways  to  the  edifica. 
"  tion  of  the  church :  such  was  the  constitution  of  the  Christian 
"  church  in  its  infancy,  when  its  assemblies  were  neither  numerous 
"  nor  splendid.  Three  or  four  presbyters,  men  of  remarkable 
"  piety  and  wisdom,  ruled  these  small  congregations  in  perfect  har- 
<<  mony,  nor  did  they  stand  in  need  of  any  president  or  superior  to 
"  maintain  concord  and  order,  where  no  dissensions  were  known. 
"  But  the  number  of  the  presbyters  and  deacons  increasing  with  that 
"  of  the  churches,  and  the  sacred  work  of  the  ministry  growing 
"  more  painful  and  weighty  by  a  number  of  additional  duties,  these 
"  new  circumstances  required  new  regulations.  It  was  then  judged 
"  necessary  that  one  man  of  distinguished  gravity  and  wisdom 
"  should  preside  in  the  council  of  presbyters,  in  order  to  distribute 
"  among  his  colleagues  their  several  tasks,  and  to  be  a  centre  of 
"  union  to  the  whole  society.  This  person  was  at  first  styled  the 
"  Angel  of  the  church  to  which  he  belonged  :  but  was  afterwards 
"  distinguished  by  the  name  of  bishop  or  inspector ;  a  name  bor- 
"  rowed  from  the  Greek  language,  and  expressing  the  principal 
"  part  of  the  episcopal  function,  which  was  to  inspect  into,  and 
"  superintend  the  affairs  of  the  church.  Let  none,  however,  con- 


RISE  AND  PROGRESS  OF  PRELACY.  199 

«  found  the  bishops  of  this  primitive  and  golden  period  of  the  church 
"  with  those  of  whom  we  read  in  the  following  ages.  For  though 
"  they  were  both  distinguished  by  the  same  name,  yet  they  differ- 
"  ed  extremely,  and  that  in  many  respects.  A  bishop  during  the 
"  first  and  second  century,  was  a  person  who  had  the  care  of  one 
"  Christian  assembly,  which,  at  that  time,  was,  generally  speaking, 
tl  small  enough  to  be  contained  in  a  private  house.  In  this  assem- 
"  bly  he  acted,  not  so  much  with  the  authority  of  a  master,  as  with 
"  the  zeal  and  diligence  of  a  faithful  servant.  He  instructed  the 
"  people,  performed  the  several  parts  of  divine  worship,  attended 
"  the  sick,  and  inspected  into  the  circumstances  and  supplies  of  the 
"  poor."  Eccles.  Hist.  I.  101. 104 — 106  Such  is  the  representa- 
tion which  this  learned  historian  gives  of  the  government  of  the 
Christian  church  during  thejirst,  and  the  greater  part  of  the  second 
century. 

Of  the  third  century  he  speaks  in  the  following  manner.  "  The 
"  face  of  things  began  now  to  change  in  the  Christian  church.  The 
"  ancient  method  of  ecclesiastical  government,  seemed,  in  general? 
"  still  to  subsist,  while,  at  the  same  time,  by  imperceptible  steps,  it 
"  varied  from  the  primitive  rule,  and  degenerated  towards  the  form 
"  of  a  religious  monarchy.  For  the  bishops  aspired  to  higher 
"  degrees  of  power  and  authority  than  they  had  formerly  possessed, 
"  and  not  only  violated  the  rights  of  the  people,  but  also  made  gra- 
"  dual  encroachments  upon  the  privileges  of  the  presbyters.  And 
"  that  they  might  cover  these  usurpations  with  an  air  of  justice,  and 
u  an  appearance  of  reason,  they  published  new  doctrines  concern- 
"  ing  the  nature  of  the  Church,  and  of  the  Episcopal  dignity. 
"  One  of  the  principal  authors  of  this  change  in  the  government  of 
"  the  church  was  Cyprian,  who  pleaded  for  the  power  of  the  bi- 
"  shops  with  more  zeal  and  vehemence  than  had  ever  been  hitherto 
"  employed  in  that  cause.  This  change  in  the  form  of  ecclesias- 
"  tical  government  was  soon  followed  by  a  train  of  vices,  which 
"  dishonoured  the  character  and  authority  of  those  to  whom  the 
"  administration  of  the  church  was  committed.  For  though  seve- 
"  ral  yet  continued  to  exhibit  to  the  world  illustrious  examples  of 
"  primitive  piety  and  Christian  virtue  ;  yet  many  were  sunk  in  lux- 
"  ury  and  voluptuousness ;  puffed  up  with  vanity,  arrogance,  and 
"  ambition  ;  possessed  with  a  spirit  of  contention  and  discord ;  and 
"  addicted  to  many  other  vices,  that  cast  an  undeserved  reproach 


200  LETTER  VIII. 

"  upon  the  holy  religion,  of  which  they  were  the  unworthy  profess- 
"  ors  and  ministers.  This  is  testified  in  such  an  ample  manner, 
"  by  the  repeated  complaints  of  many  of  the  most  respectable  wri- 
"  ters  of  this  age,  that  truth  will  not  permit  us  to  spread  the  veil 
"  which  we  should  otherwise  be  desirous  to  cast  over  such  enormi- 
"  ties  among  an  order  so  sacred.  The  bishops  assumed,  in  many 
"  places,  a  princely  authority.  They  appropriated  to  their  evan- 
"  gelical  function,  the  splendid  ensigns  of  temporal  majesty.  A 
"  throne,  surrounded  with  ministers,  exalted  above  his  equals,  the 
"  servant  of  the  meek  and  humble  Jesus;  and  sumptuous  garments 
"  dazzled  the  eyes  and  the  minds  of  the  multitude  into  an  ignorant 
"  veneration  for  their  arrogated  authority.  The  example  of  the 
"  bishops  was  ambitiously  imitated  by  the  presbyters,  who,  neglect- 
"  ing  the  sacred  duties  of  their  station,  abandoned  themselves  to  the 
"  indolence  and  delicacy  of  an  effeminate  and  luxurious  life.  The 
"  deacons,  beholding  the  presbyters  deserting  thus  their  functions^ 
"  boldly  usurped  their  rights  and  privileges ;  and  the  effects  of  a 
"  corrupt  ambition  were  spread  through  every  rank  of  the  sacred 
«  order."  I.  265—267- 

I  shall  only  add  a  short  extract  from  the  same  writer's  account 
of  the  fourth  century.  "  The  bishops,  whose  opulence  and  autho- 
"  rity  were  considerably  increased  since  the  reign  of  Constanline, 
"  began  to  introduce  gradually  innovations  into  the  form  of  eccle- 
"  siastical  discipline,  and  to  change  the  ancient  government  of  the 
"  church.  Their  first  step  was  an  entire  exclusion  of  the  people 
"  from  all  part  in  the  administration  of  ecclesiastical  affairs  ;  and 
"  afterwards,  they,  by  decrees,  divested  even  the  presbyters  of 
"  their  ancient  privileges,  and  their  primitive  authority,  that  they 
"  might  have  no  importunate  protesters  to  control  their  ambition, 
"  or  oppose  their  proceedings ;  and  principally  that  they  might 
"  either  engross  to  themselves,  or  distribute  as  they  thought  proper, 
"  the  possessions  and  revenues  of  the  church.  Hence  it  came  to 
"  pass  that  at  the  conclusion  of  the  fourth  century,  there  remained 
"  no  more  than  a  mere  shadow  of  the  ancient  government  of  the 
"  church.  Many  of  the  privileges  which  had  formerly  belonged 
"  to  the  presbyters  and  people,  were  usurped  by  the  bishops  ;  and 
"  many  of  the  rights  which  had  been  formally  vested  in  the  uni- 
"  versal  church,  were  transferred  to  the  emperors,  and  to  sub- 
"  ordinate  officers  and  magistrates."  I.  348. 


RISE  AND  PROGRESS  OF  PRELACY.  201 

Such  is  the  representation  of  Mosheim,  one  of  the  most  learned 
men  of  the  eighteenth  century  ;  and  who  had  probably  investigated 
the  early  history  of  the  church  with  as  much  diligence  and  penetra- 
tion as  any  man  that  ever  lived. 

The  next  citation  shall  be  taken  from  Gibbon's  Decline  and 
Fall  of  the  Roman  Empire.  The  hostility  of  this  writer  to  the 
Christian  religion  is  well  known.  Of  course,  on  any  subject 
involving  the  divine  origin  of  Christianity,  I  should  fed  little  dis- 
position either  to  respect  his  judgment,  or  to  rely  on  his  assertions. 
But  on  the  subject  before  us,  which  is  a  question  of/acf,  and  which 
he  treats  historically,  he  had  no  temptation  to  deviate  from 
impartiality ;  or,  if  such  temptation  had  existed,  it  would  have 
been  likely  to  draw  him  to  the  side  of  ecclesiastical  aristocracy 
and  splendour,  rather  than  to  that  of  primitive  simplicity.  His  deep 
and  extensive  learning,  no  competent  judge  ever  questioned  :  and, 
indeed,  his  representations  on  this  subject,  are  fortified  by  so  many 
references  to  the  most  approved  writers,  that  they  cannot  be  con- 
sidered as  resting  on  his  candour  or  veracity  alone.* 

Mr.  Gibbon  thus  describes  the  character  and  duties  of  Christian 
bishops  in  the  first  arid  second  centuries :  "  The  public  functions 
"  of  religion  were  solely  entrusted  to  the  established  ministers  of 
"  the  church,  the  bishops  and  the  presbyters  ;  two  appellations 
"  which,  in  their  first  origin,  appear  to  have  distinguished  the  same 
(t  office,  and  the  same  order  of  persons.  The  name  of  presbyter 
"  was  expressive  of  their  age,  or  rather  of  their  gravity  and  wisdom. 
"  The  title  of  bishop  denoted  their  inspection  over  the  faith  and 
"  manners  of  the  Christians  who  were  committed  to  their  pastoral 
"  care.  In  proportion  to  the  respective  numbers  of  the  faithful,  a 
"  larger  or  smaller  number  of  these  episcopal  presbyters  guided 
"  each  infant  congregation,  with  equal  authority,  and  with  united 
"  counsels.  But  the  most  perfect  equality  of  freedom  requires  the 

*  The  pious  episcopal  divine,  Dr.  Haweis,  speaking  of  Mr.  Gibbon's 
mode  of  representing  this  subject,  expresses  himself  in  the  following 
manner.  "  Where  no  immediate  bias  to  distort  the  truth,  leaves  him  an 
"  impartial  witness,  I  will  quote  Gibbon  with  pleasure.  I  am  conscious 
"  his  authority  is  more  likely  to  weigh  with  the  world  in  general,  than 
"  mine.  I  will  therefore,  simply  report  his  account  of  the  government 
"  and  nature  of  the  primitive  church.  I  think  we  shall  not  in  this  point 
"  greatly  differ."  Eccles.  Hist.  I.  416. 
2  C 


202  LETTER  VIII. 

"  directing  hand  of  a  superior  magistrate  ;  and  the  order  of  public 
"  deliberations  soon  introduces  the  office  of  a  president,  invested 
"  at  least  with  the  authority  of  collecting  the  sentiments,  and  of 
"  executing  the  resolutions  of  the  assembly.  A  regard  for 
"  the  public  tranquillity,  which  would  so  frequently  have  been 
"  interrupted  by  annual,  or  by  occasional  elections,  induced  the 
"  primitive  Christians  to  constitute  an  honourable  and  perpetual 
"  magistracy,  and  to  choose  one  of  the  wisest  and  most  holy  among 
"  their  presbyters,  to  execute,  during  his  life,  the  duties  of  their 
u  ecclesiastical  governor.  It  was  under  these  circumstances  that 
"  the  lofty  title  of  bishop  began  to  raise  itself  above  the  humble 
"  appellation  of  presbyter ;  and  while  the  latter  remained  the  most 
"  natural  distinction  for  the  members  of  every  Christian  senate, 
"  the  former  was  appropriated  to  the  dignity  of  its  new  president. 
"  The  pious  and  humble  presbyters  who  were  first  dignified  with 
"  the  episcopal  title,  could  not  possess,  and  would  probably  have 
"  rejected  the  power  and  pomp  which  now  encircle  the  tiara  of  the 
"  Roman  Pontiff,  or  the  mitre  of  a  German  prelate.  The  primitive 
"  bishops  were  considered  only  as  ihejirst  of  their  equals,  and  the 
"  honourable  servants  of  a  free  people.  Whenever  the  episcopal 
"  chair  became  vacant  by  death,  a  new  president  was  chosen 
"  among  the  presbyters,  by  the  suffrage  of  the  whole  congregation. 
"  Such  was  the  mild  and  equal  constitution  by  which  the  Christians 
"  were  governed  more  than  a  hundred  years  after  the  death  of  the 
«  apostles."*  Decline  and  Fa//,  Vol.  II.  272—275. 

Concerning  the  state  of  episcopacy  in  the  third  century,  Mr. 
Gibbon  thus  speaks.  "  As  the  legislative  authority  of  the  particu- 
"  lar  churches,  was  insensibly  superseded  by  the  use  of  councils, 
st  the  bishops  obtained  by  their  alliance,  a  much  larger  share  of 
"  executive  and  arbitrary  power  ;  and,  as  soon  as  they  were  con- 
"  nected  by  a  sense  of  their  common  interest,  they  were  enabled 
"  to  attack  with  united  vigour  the  original  rights  of  the  clergy  and 
"people.  The  prelates  of  the  third  century  imperceptibly 
"  changed  the  language  of  exhortation  into  that  of  command, 

*  Here  is  an  explicit  declaration,  that  the  presidency  or  standing 
moderatorship  of  one  of  the  presbyters,  among  his  colleagues,  without 
any  claim  to  superiority  of  order,  was  the  only  kind  of  episcopacy  that 
existed  in  the  church  until  near  the  close  of  the  second  century. 


RISE    AND  PROGRESS  OF  PRELACY.  203 

"  scattered  the  seeds  of  future  usurpations,  and  supplied  by  scrip- 
"  ture  allegories,  and  declamatory  rhetoric,  their  deficiency  of 
"  force  and  of  reason.  They  exalted  the  unity  and  power  of  the 
"  church,  as  it  was  represented  in  the  episcopal  office,  of  which 
"  every  bishop  enjoyed  an  equal  and  undivided  portion.  Princes  and 
"  magistrates,  it  was  often  repeated,  might  boast  an  earthly  claim 
•"  to  a  transitory  dominion.  It  was  the  episcopal  authority  alone 
"  which  was  derived  from  the  Deity,  and  extended  itself  over  this, 
"  and  over  another  world.  The  bishops  were  the  vicegerents  of 
"  Christ,  the  successors  of  the  apostles,  and  the  mystic  substitutes 
"  of  the  high  priest  of  the  Mosaic  law.  Their  exclusive  privi- 
"  lege  of  conferring  the  sacerdotal  character,  invaded  the  freedom 
"  both  of  clerical  and  of  popular  elections  ;  and  if,  in  the  admi- 
"  nistralion  of  the  church,  they  sometimes  consulted  the  judgment 
ct  of  the  presbyters,  or  the  inclination  of  the  people,  they  most 
"  carefully  inculcated  the  merit  of  such  a  voluntary  condescension." 
—I.  p.  276,  277. 

Dr.  Haweis,  an  episcopal  divine,  in  his  Ecclesiastical  History ,  a 
late  and  popular  work  before  quoted,  substantially  agrees 
with  Dr.  Mosheim,  and  Mr.  Gibbon,  in  their  representations  on 
this  subject.  He  explicitly  pronounces  with  them,  that  primitive 
episcopacy  was  parochial,  and  not  diocesan;  that  clerical  pride 
and  ambition  gradually  introduced  prelacy;  that  there  was  no 
material  innovation,  however,  on  the  primitive  model,  until  the 
middle  of  the  second  century  ;  and  that  after  this,  the  system  of 
imparity  made  rapid  progress,  until  there  arose,  in  succession, 
diocesan  bishops,  archbishops,  metropolitans,  patriarchs,  and, 
finally,  the  pope  himself. 

The  great  body  of  ecclesiastical  historians  give,  in  substance, 
the  same  account.  There  is,  indeed,  some  difference  of  opinion 
among  them  concerning  the  times  at  which  the  various  steps  in  the 
rise  and  progress  of  prelacy  were  taken,  and  concerning  the  means 
which  ambitious  ecclesiastics  employed  in  making  their  successive 
encroachments  ;  but  I  know  of  no  protestant  historian  who  has  the 
character  of  even  tolerable  impartiality,  who  does  not  represent 
prelacy  as  a  human  invention,  which  was  brought  in  'some  time 
after  the  apostles'  days,  and  which  arose  gradually  and  almost 
insensibly  from  small  beginnings,  until  it  terminated  in  the  grand 
and  triumphant  usurpation  of  the  bishop  of  Rome.  Hence  profes- 


204  LETTER  VIII. 

sor  Whitaker,  an  episcopal  divine  of  great  learning,  and  of  high 
authority,  speaking  of  the  conceded  fact,  that  prelacy  was  intro- 
duced after  the  apostolic  age,  and  as  a  remedy  against  schism, 
frankly  declares,  that  "  the  remedy  was  almost  worse  than  the 
"  disease  ;  for  as  at  first  one  presbyter  was  set  over  the  rest,  and 
"  made  bishop,  so  afterwards  one  bishop  was  set  over  the  other 
"  bishops.  Thus  that  custom  begot  the  pope  and  his  monarchy, 
"  and  brought  them  by  little  and  little  into  the  church."  Regim. 
Eccles.  p.  540. 

The  fact  being  thus  established,  that  diocesan  episcopacy  was 
not  sanctioned  by  the  apostles  ;  that  it  was  the  offspring  of  human 
ambition  ;  and  that  it  was  gradually  introduced  into  the  church  ; 
I  shall  not  detain  you  long  in  considering  the  precise  gradations 
by  which  it  was  introduced,  or  the  precise  dale  to  be  assigned  to 
each  step  in  its  progress.  Such  an  inquiry  is  as  unnecessary  and 
unimportant  as  it  is  difficult.  But  as  it  may  gratify  some  readers 
to  know  how  those  who  have  most  deeply  and  successfully  explored 
antiquity,  have  considered  the  subject,  I  shall  attempt  a  sketch 
of  what  appears  to  have  been  the  rise  and  progress  of  this  remark- 
able usurpation. 

The  Christian  religion  spread  itself  during  the  apostolic  age,  over 
a  large  part  of  the  Roman  empire.  It  was  first  received  in  the 
principal  cities,  Jerusalem^  Antioch,  Ephesus,  Corinth,  and  Rome. 
Here  congregations  appear  to  have  been  first  formed,  and  church 
officers  first  appointed.  As  the  places  of  worship  were  usually 
private  houses,  it  follows  of  course  that  each  congregation  was 
comparatively  small.  And  as  we  read  of  great  multitudes  having 
believed  in  several  of  the  larger  cities,  we  may  infer  that  there 
were  a  number  of  these  congregations,  or  small  house  churches  in 
each  of  those  cities. 

Each  primitive  congregation  was  furnished  with  one  or  more 
elders,  and  also  with  deacons.  The  elders  were  of  two  kinds : 
the  first. class  were  ministers  of  the  Gospel,  and  therefore  taught 
and  lead  the  devotions  of  the  people,  as  well  as  ruled  in  the  church. 
The  other  class  assisted  as  rulers  only.  It  is  not  certain  that  both 
these  classes  of  elders  were  found  in  every  church.  We  only 
know  that  they  both  existed  in  the  apostolic  age  ;  and  that  all  the 
elders  of  each  congregation,  when  convened,  formed  a  kind  of 


RISE  AND  PROGRESS  OF  PRELACY.  205 

parochial  presbytery,  or  church  session.  The  elders' were  also 
called  bishops.  Of  these  each  congregation  was  always  furnished 
with  one,  and  sometimes  with  several,  according  to  the  number  of 
its  members,  and  other  circumstances.  We  are  expressly  told  in 
the  sacred  history,  that  in  the  days  of  the  apostles  there  were 
a  number  of  bishops  in  each  of  the  cities  of  Ephesus  and  Philippi; 
and  it  is  most  probable  that  these  were  the  associated  pastors  of 
congregations  in  those  cities  respectively. 

In  those  cases  in  which  there  were  several  pastors  or  bishops 
in  the  same  church,  they  were  at  first  perfectly,  and  in  all  respects 
equal.  "They  ruled  the  church,"  as  Jerome  expresses  it,  "in 
common ;"  and  the  alternate  titles  of  bishop  and  elder  belonged 
and  were  equally  applied  to  all.  It  does  not  appear,  that  in  the 
beginning,  even  a  temporary  chairman  was  found  necessary. 
There  was  probably  little  formality  in  their  mode  of  transacting 
business.  A  large  portion  of  the  spirit  of  their  master  supplied  the 
place  of  specific  rules,  and  of  energetic  government.  But  towards 
the  close  of  the  first  century,  when  both  churches  and  ministers 
had  greatly  multiplied  ;  when  it  was  common  to  have  a  number  of 
teaching  as  well  as  ruling  elders  in  the  same  congregation  ;  when, 
with  the  increasing  number,  it  is  most  probable  that  some  unworthy 
characters  had  crept  into  the  ministry  ;  and  when,  of  course,  the 
preservation  of  order  in  their  parochial  presbyteries  was  more 
difficult,  the  expedient  of  appointing  a  president  or  moderator, 
would  naturally  and  almost  unavoidably  be  adopted.  This  presid- 
ing presbyter  was  generally,  at  first,  the  oldest  and  gravest  of  the 
number ;  but  soon  afterwards,  as  we  are  told,  the  rule  of  seniority 
was  laid  aside,  and  the  most  able,  enterprising,  and  decisive 
presbyter,  was  chosen  to  fill  the  chair.  After  a  while,  the  choice 
of  a  president  was  not  made  at  every  meeting  of  the  parochial 
presbytery  or  church  session,  but  was  made  for  an  indefinite  time, 
and  often/or  life  ;  in  which  case  the  choice  usually  fell  upon  the 
person  who  had  the  »ost  influence,  and  was  supposed  to  possess 
the  greatest  weight  of  character.  This  chairman  or  moderator, 
who  presided  during  the  debates,  collected  the  voices,  and  pro- 
nounced the  sentences  of  the  bench  of  presbyters,  was,  of  course, 
the  most  conspicuous  and  dignified  of -the  number.  He  had  no 
pre-eminence  of  order  over  his  brethren  ;  but  (to  employ  the 
illustration  of  a  respectable  episcopal  divine,  before  quoted,)  as 


206  LETTER  V11I. 

the  chairman  of  a  committee  has  a  more  honourable  place  than 
the  rest  of  the  members,  while  the  committee  is  sitting ;  so  a 
chairman  for  life,  in  a  dignified  ecclesiastical  court,  was  generally 
regarded  with  peculiar  respect  and  veneration.  In  conducting 
public  worship,  this  chairman  always  took  the  lead;  as  the  organ 
of  the  body,  he  called  the  other  presbyters  to  the  performance  of 
the  several  parts  assigned  to  them  ;  and  usually  himself  prayed 
and  preached.  When  the  bench  of  presbyters  was  called  to  per- 
form an  ordination,  the  chairman,  of  course,  presided  in  this 
transaction ;  and,  in  general,  in  all  acts  of  the  church  session  or 
consistory,  he  took  the  lead,  and  was  the  principal  medium  of 
communication. 

This  practice  of  choosing  a  president  in  the  consistorial  courts 
appears  to  have  begun  in  a  short  time  after  the  death  of  the  apos- 
tles, and  to  have  been  the  only  kind  of  pre-eminence  that  was 
enjoyed  by  any  of  the  bishops,  over  their  brethren,  until  about  the 
middle,  and,  in  some  churches,  till  the  close  of  the  second  century. 
Indeed,  Jerome  declares,  that  this  was  the  only  kind  of  episcopal 
pre-eminence  that  existed  in  the  church  of  Alexandria,  one  of  the 
most  conspicuous  then  in  the  world,  until  the  middle  of  the  third 
century.  That  such  was  the  only  superiority  which  the  principal 
pastor  of  each  church  enjoyed  in  primitive  times,  and  that  such 
was  the  origin  of  this  superiority,  is  evident,  not  only  from  the 
direct  testimony  of  antiquity,  but  also,  indirectly,  from  the  names 
by  which  this  officer  is  generally  distinguished  by  the  early  writers. 
He  is  not  only  called  emphatically,  the  bishop  of  the  church  $  but, 
as  all  his  colleagues  also  had  the  title  of  bishop,  he  is,  perhaps, 
more  frequently  styled,  by  way  of  distinction,  the  president, 
(npo££TW£)  ;  the  chairman,  (IlpostSpos)  ;  and  the  person  who  filled 
the  Jirst  seat,  (npwroxaOsfyia),  in  the  presbytery.  Had  we  no 
other  evidence  in  the  case,  these  titles  alone  would  go  far  towards 
establishing  the  origin  and  nature  of  his  pre-eminence. 

The  powers  of  this  chairman  were  gradually  increased.  In 
some  cases  his  own  ambition,  and,  in  others,  the  exigencies  of  par- 
ticular times  and  places,  at  once  multiplied  his  duties,  enlarged  his 
authority,  and  augmented  his  honours.  Not  only  the  ruling  elders, 
but  also  his  colleagues  in  the  ministry  were  led  insensibly  to  look 
upon  him  with  peculiar  reverence.  His  presence  began  to  be 
deemed  necessary,  at  first  to  the  regularity,  and  afterwards  to  the 


RISE  AND  PROGRESS  OF  PRELACY.         207 

validity  of  all  the  proceedings  of  the  bench  of  presbyters.  And  as 
his  office,  in  those  times,  was  a  post  of  danger  as  well  as  of  honour, 
the  rest  of  the  presbyters  would  more  readily  submit  to  the  claims 
of  a  man  who  put  his  life  in  his  hand  to  serve  the  church.  This 
may  be  called  the  FIRST  STEP  in  the  rise  of  prelacy.  The  example 
once  set  in  some  of  the  principal  cities,  was  probably  soon  adopted 
in  the  less  populous  towns,  and  in  the  country  churches. 

This  measure  led  to  another  equally  natural.     The  pastors  or 
bishops  who  resided  in  the  same  city,  were  led  on  different  occa- 
sions to  meet  together,  to  consult  and  to  transact  various  kinds  of 
business.     Their  meetings  were  probably  at  first,  attended  with 
very  little  formality.  In  a  short  time,  however,  as  Christianity 
gained  ground,   they  came  together  more  frequently;  had  more 
business  to  transact ;  and  found  it  expedient  to  be  more  formal  in 
their  proceedings.     A  president  or  chairman  became  necessary, 
as  in  the  smaller  presbytery,  or  church   session.     Such  an  officer 
was  accordingly  chosen,  sometimes  at  each  meeting,  but  more  fre- 
quently for  an  indefinite  period,  or  for  life.     Whatever  number  of 
congregations  and  of  ministers  were  thus  united  under  a  Presbytery, 
they  were  styled,  (upon  a  principle  of  ecclesiastical  unity  which 
was  then  common,)  one  church.  The  standing  moderator  or  presi- 
dent of  this  larger  Presbytery,  was  styled  the  bishop  of  the  city  in 
which  he  presided.     This  was  a  SECOND  STEP  towards  prelacy. 
At  what  precise  time  it  was  taken,  is  difficult  to  be  ascertained. 
But  before  the  close  of  the  third  century,  so  greatly  increased  were 
the  affluence  and  pride  of  ecclesiastics,  that  the  president  or  mode- 
rator of  these  meetings  was  seated  on  a  lofty  throne  in  the  midst 
of  the  assembly,  decorated  with  splendid  robes,  and  loaded  with 
peculiar  honours.     As  he  officially  superintended  the  execution  of 
the  decrees  of  the  assembly,  his  power  gradually  increased;  and  it 
was  a  short  transition  from  the  exercise  of  power  in  the  name  of 
others,  to  the  exercise  of  it  without  consulting  them. 

In  the  towns  where  there  was  but  one  congregation,  and  that  a 
small  one,  there  was  generally  but  one  teaching  presbyter  asso- 
ciated with  a  number  of  ruling  presbyters.  This  was  the  pastor  or 
bishop.  When  the  congregation  increased,  and  the  introduction  of 
other  teachers  was  found  necessary,  the  first  retained  his  place  as 
sole  pastor,  and  the  others  came  in  as  his  assista?its  ;  and  although 
of  the  same  order  with  himself,  yet  he  alone  was  the  responsible 


208  LETTER  VIII. 

pastor.    In  short,  the  rest  of  the  teaching  presbyters  in  this  case, 
bore  precisely  the  same  relation  to  the  bishop,  on  the  score  of  rank, 
as  curates  bear  to  the  rector  in  a  large  episcopal  congregation. 
They   were   clothed  with  the  same  official   power  of  preaching 
and  administering  ordinances   with  the  pastor,  and  were  capable, 
without  any  further  ordination,  of  becoming  pastors  in  their  turn  ; 
but  while  they  remained  in  this  situation,  their  labours  were  direct- 
ed by  him.  As  a  congregation  under  these  circumstances,  increased 
still  more,  and  included  a  number  of  members  from  the  neighbour- 
ing villages,  some  of  these  members,  finding  it  inconvenient  to  attend 
the  church  in  which  the  bishop  officiated  every  Lord's  day,  began 
to  lay  plans  for  forming  separate  congregations  nearer  home.     To 
this  the  bishop  consented,  on  condition  that  the  little  worshipping 
societies  thus  formed,  should  consider  themselves  as  still  under  his 
pastoral  care,  as  amenable  to  the  parent  church,  and  as  bound  to 
..obey  him  as  their  spiritual  guide.     When  the  pastor  agreed  to  this 
arrangement,  it  was  generally  understood,  that  there  should  be  but 
one  communion  table,  and  one  baptistery  in   the  parish ;  and,  of 
course,  that  when  the  members  of  these  neighbouring  societies 
wished  to  enjoy  either  of  the  sealing  ordinances,  they  were  to  at- 
tend at  the  parent  church,  and  receive  them  from  the  hands  of  the 
pastor  or  bishop  himself.     At  ordinary  seasons  they  were  supplied 
by  his  curates  or  assistants,  who,  in  labouring  in  these  little  orato- 
ries or  chapels  of  ease,  were  subject  to  his  control.     This  was 
laying  a  foundation  for  the  authority  of  one  bishop  or  pastor  over 
several  congregations,  which  was  not  long  afterwards  claimed  and 
generally  yielded.     This  proved   a  THIRD   STEP  in  the   rise  of 
prelacy. 

The  progress  of  the  church  towards  prelacy  was  further  aided  by 
the  practice  of  convening  synods  and  councils.  This  practice 
began  at  an  early  period,  and  soon  became  general.  The  Latins 
styled  these  larger  meetings  of  the  clergy  $  councils,  the  Greeks, 
synods  ;  and  the  laws  which  were  enacted  by  these  bodies,  were 
denominated  canons,  i.e.  rules.,  "  These  councils,"  says  Dr. 
Mosheim,  "  changed  the  whole  face  of  the  church,  and  gave  it  a 
"  new  form."  The  order  and  decorum  of  their  business  required 
that  a  president  should  be  appointed.  The  power  lodged  in  this 
officer  scarcely  ever  failed  to  be  extended  and  abused.  These 
synods  were  accustomed  to  meet  in  the  capital  cities  of  the  district 


RTSE  AND  PROGRESS  OP   PRELACY.        209 

or  province  to  which  the  members  belonged,  and  to  confer  the 
presidency  upon  the  most  conspicuous  pastor,  for  the  time  being, 
of  the  city  in  which  they  met.  And  thus,  by  the  gradual  operation 
of  habit,  it  came  to  be  considered  as  the  right  of  those  persons,  and 
of  their  successors  in  office.  "  Hence,"  says  the  learned  historian 
just  quoted,  "  the  rights  of  metropolitans  derive  their  origin."  The 
order  of  the  church  required,  at  first,  the  presence  of  the  presiding 
bishops,  to  give  regularity  to  the  acts  of  synods  and  councils.  In 
a  little  while  their  presence  was  deemed  necessary  to  the  validity 
of  these  acts;  and,  in  the  third  century,  it  began  to  be  believed  that 
without  them  nothing  could  be  done.  Such  is  the  ordinary  pro- 
gress of  human  affairs.  The  increase  of  wealth,  the  decay  of  piety, 
the  corruption  of  morals,  and  the  prevalence  of  heresy  and  conten- 
tion, were  all  circumstances  highly  favourable  to  the  progress  of 
this  change,  and  concurring,  with  Jewish  prejudices,  pagan  habits, 
and  clerical  ambition, .hurried  on  the  growing  usurpation. 

That  the  synods  and  councils  which  early  began  to  be  convened, 
were,  in  fact,  thus  employed  by  the  ambitious  clergy,  to  extend 
and  confirm  their  power,  might  be  proved  by  witnesses  almost 
numberless.  The  testimony  of  one  shall  suffice.  It  is  that  of  the 
great  and  good  bishop,  Gregory  Nazianzen,  who  lived  in  the 
fourth  century,  and  who,  on  being  summoned  by  the  emperor  to 
the  general  council  of  Constantinople,  which  met  in  381,  addressed 
a  letter  to  Procopius,  to  excuse  himself  from  attending.  In  this 
letter  he  declares,  "  that  he  was  desirous  of  avoiding  all  synods, 
"  because  he  had  never  seen  a  good  effect,  or  happy  conclusion  of  any 
"  one  of  them  ;  that  they  rather  increased  than  lessened  the  evils 
"  they  were  designed  to  prevent ;  and  that  the  love  of  contention, 
"  and  the  lust  of  power,  were  there  manifested  in  instances  iiinu- 
«  merable."  Greg.  Naz.  Oper.  torn.  I.  p.  814.  Epist.  55.  And, 
afterwards,  speaking  of  that  very  council,  this  pious  father  remarks : 
"  These  conveyers  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  these  preachers  of  peace  to 
"  all  men,  grew  bitterly  outrageous  and  clamorous  against  one 
"  another,  in  the  midst  of  the  church,  mutually  accusing  each  other, 
"  leaping  about  as  if  they  had  been  mad,  under  the  furious  impulse 
"  of  a  lust  of  power  and  dominion,  as  if  they  would  have  rent  the 
<e  whole  world  in  pieces. "  He  afterwards  adds,  "  this  was  not  the 
"  effect  of  piety,  but  of  a  contention  for  thrones."  Tom.  II.  25,  27. 
In  short,  so  great  was  the  disgust  of  Gregory  at  the  ambitious  and 
2  D 


LETTER   VIII. 

grasping  spirit  manifested  by  the  clergy  of  his  day,  that  we  find  him 
speaking  on  the  subject  in  the  following  warm  language.  "  Would 
"  to  God  there  were  no  prelacy,  no  pre-eminence  of  place,  no  ty- 
"  rannical  privileges  ;  and  that  we  might  be  distinguished  by  virtue 
"  alone.  This  right  and  left  hand,  and  this  middle  place,  these 
"  higher  and  lower  dignities,  and  this  state-like  precedency,  have 
((  caused  many  fruitless  contests  and  bruises,  have  cast  many  into 
"  the  pit,  and  carried  away  multitudes  to  the  place  of  the  goats." 
Oper.  torn.  I.  Orat.  28.  Would  an  eminently  learned  and  pious 
bishop  have  spoken  thus,  if  he  had  considered  prelacy  as  of  divine 
appointment  ?  Or  would  he  have  suffered  himself  to  use  this  lan- 
guage concerning  the  prelates  of  his  day,  and  also  concerning  their 
predecessors,*  if  their  ambition  and  usurpations  had  not  been  alto- 
gether intolerable. 

In  the  third  century,  the  title  of  bishop  was  seldom  applied  to 
any  other  of  the  presbyters,  than  the  different  classes  of  presidents 
before  mentioned.  The  only  shadow  which  now  remained  of  its 
former  use  was  in  the  case  of  the  pastors  of  country  parishes,  who 
still  maintained  the  parochial  episcopacy,  under  the  name  of  Chore- 
piscopi.  The  ordaining  power,  originally  vested  in  all  presbyters 
alike,  was  in  the  third  century  seldom  exercised  by  presbyters, 
unless  the  presiding  presbyter,  or  bishop,  was  present.  About  this 
time,  the  name  of  presbyter  was  changed  into  that  of  priest,  in  con- 
sequence of  the  unscriptural  and  irrational  doctrine  coming  into 
vogue,  that  the  Christian  ministry  was  modelled  after  the  Jeicish 
priesthood.  About  this  time  also  the  office  of  ruling  elder  appears 
to  have  been  laid  aside ;  and  a  part  of  the  ministry  of  the  word 
bestowed  upon  deacons,  contrary  to  the  original  design  of  their 
office,  which  was  to  superintend  the  maintenance  of  the  poor.  The 
presbytery  sunk  into  the  bishops'  council.  The  Synod  subserved 
the  pretensions  of  the  metropolitan,  and  there  was  only  wanting  a 
general  council,  and  a  chief  bishop,  to  complete  the  hierarchy. 
Both  of  these  the  next  age  compliantly  furnished.  In  the  mean 
time,  the  few  humble  admirers  of  primitive  parity  and  simplicity, 
who  dared  to  remonstrate  against  these  usurpations,  were  reviled 


*  He  speaks  with  nearly  equal  severity  of  the  unprincipled  ambition, 
and  shameful  conduct  of  the  clergy  at  the  council  of  Ntcet  which  met 
in  325. 


RISE  AND  PROGRESS  OF  PRELACY.  211 

as  promoters  of  faction  and  schism,  and  either  thrust  out  of  the 
church,  or  awed  into  silence. 

When  Constantine  came  to  the  imperial  throre,  in  the  fourth 
century,  he  confirmed  the  usurpation  of  the  bishops  by  his  autho- 
rity, and  bestowed  upon  them  a  degree  of  wealth  and  power  to 
which  they  had  before  been  strangers.  He  conferred  new  splen- 
dour on  every  part  of  the  ecclesiastical  system.  He  fostered  every 
thing  which  had  a  tendency  to  convert  religion  from  a  spiritual 
service  into  a  gaudy,  ostentatious,  dazzling  ritual;  and  its  minis- 
ters into  lords  over  God's  heritage,  instead  of  examples  to  the 
flock.  Old  Testament  rites,  heathen  ceremonies,  and  institutions 
of  worldly  policy,  which  had  long  before  begun  to  enter  the  church, 
now  rushed  in  like  a  flood.  And  what  was  worse,  the  great  mass 
of  the  people,  as  well  as  of  the  clergy,  were  gratified  with  the 
change.  The  Jewish  proselyte  was  pleased  to  see  the  resemblance 
which  the  economy  of  the  Christian  church  began  to  bear  to  the 
ancient  temple  service.  The  pagan  convert  was  daily  more 
reconciled  to  a  system,  which  he  saw  approximating  to  that  which 
he  had  been  long  accustomed  to  behold  in  the  house  of  his  idols. 
And  the  artful  politician  could  not  but  admire  a  hierarchy,  so  far 
subservient  to  the  interests,  and  conformed  to  the  model  of  the 
Roman  empire.  Constantine  assumed  to  himself  the  right  of  call- 
ing general  councils,  of  presiding  in  them,  of  determining  contro- 
versies, and  of  fixing  the  bounds  of  ecclesiastical  provinces.  He 
formed  the  prelatical  government  after  the  imperial  model,  into 
great  prefectures ;  in  which  arrangement,  a  certain  pre-eminence 
was  conferred  on  the  bishops  of  Rome,  Antioch,  Alexandria,  and 
Constantinople  ;  (.bejirst  rank  being  always  reserved  for  the  bishop 
of  Rome,  who  succeeded  in  gradually  extending  his  usurpation, 
until  he  was  finally  confirmed  in  it  by  an  imperial  decree. 

Though  an  attempt  has  been  made  to  trace  some  of  the  grada- 
tions by  which  ministerial  imparity  arose  from  small  beginnings  to 
a  settled  diocesan  episcopacy;  yet,  from  the  very  nature  of  the 
case,  the  dates  of  the  several  steps  cannot  be  precisely  ascertained. 
To  definite  transactions  which  take  place  in  a  single  day,  or  year, 
or  which  are  accomplished  in  a  few  years,  it  is  commonly  an  easy 
task  to  assign  dates.  But,  in  this  gradual  change,  which  was 
more  than  three  centuries  in  accomplishing,  no  reasonable  man 
could  expect  to  find  the  limits  of  the  several  steps  precisely 


212  LETTER  V1I1. 

defined ;  because  each  step  was  slowly  and  almost  insensibly 
taken ;  and  more  especially,  because  the  practice  of  all  the  churches 
was  not  uniform.  There  was  no  particular  time  when  the 
transition  from  a  state  of  perfect  parity,  to  a  fixed  and  acknow- 
ledged superiority  of  order  took  place  at  once,  and  therefore  no 
such  time  can  be  assigned.  It  is  evident  from  the  records  of 
antiquity  that  the  titles  of  bishop  and  presbyter  were  indiscri- 
minately applied  to  the  same  order  in  some  churches,  long  after  a 
distinction  had  begun  to  arise  in  others.  It  is  equally  evident,  that 
the  ordaining  power  of  presbyters  was  longer  retained  in  the 
more  pure  and  primitive  districts  of  the  church,  than  where  wealth, 
ambition,  and  a  worldly  spirit,  bore  greater  sway.  In  some 
churches  there  were  several  bishops  at  the  same  time;  in  others,  but 
one.  In  some  parts  of  the  Christian  world,  it  was  the  practice  to 
consider  and  treat  all  the  preaching  presbyters  in  each  church  as 
colleagues  and  equals;  in  others,  one  of  the  presbyters  was 
regarded  as  the  pastor  or  bishop,  and  the  rest  his  assistants.  A 
few  early  writers  mention  ruling  elders,  but  the  greater  part  say 
nothing  about  them  ;  simply  because  this  class  of  officers  was  not 
found  in  every  congregation,  and  was  early  discontinued.  Fur- 
ther ;  when  the  practice  of  choosing  one  of  the  presbyters  to  be 
president  or  moderator,  commenced,  it  appeared  in  different 
forms  in  different  churches.  In  one  church,  at  least,  according 
to  Jerome,  the  presiding  presbyter  was  elected  by  his  colleagues ; 
in  other  churches,  according  to  Hilary,  the  president  came 
to  the  chair  agreeably  to  a  settled  principle  of  rotation.  In 
some  cases,  the  presiding  presbyter  was  vested  with  greater  dignity 
and  authority ;  in  others  with  less.  In  short,  it  is  evident,  that, 
in  some  portions  of  the  church,  a  difference  of  order  between 
bishops  and  presbyters  was  recognized  in  the  third  century ;  in 
others,  and  perhaps  generally,  in  {he  fourth,  but  in  some  others, 
not  until  the  Jifth  century.  No  wonder,  then,  that  we  find  a 
different  language  used  by  different  fathers  on  this  subject,  for 
the  practice  was  different ;  and  this  fact  directs  us  to  the  only 
rational  and  adequate  method  of  interpreting  their  different  repre- 
sentations. 

Such  being  the  case,  what  reasonable  man  would  expect  to  find 
in  the-records  of  antiquity,  any  definite  or  satisfactory  account  of 
the  rise  and  progress  of  prelacy  ?  If  changes  equally  early  and 


RISE  AND  PROGRESS  OF  PRELACY.  213 

important  are  covered  with  still  greater  darkness  ;  if  the  history 
of  the  first  general  council  that  ever  met,  and  which  agitated  to  its 
centre  the  whole  Christian  church,  is  so  obscure  that  even  the  place 
of  its  meeting  is  disputed,  and  no  distinct  record  of  its  acts  has  ever 
reached  our  times ;  what  might  be  expected  concerning  an  eccle- 
siastical innovation,  so  remote  in  its  origin,  so  gradual  in -its  pro- 
gress, so  indefinitely  diversified  in  the  shapes  in  which  it  appeared 
in  different  places  at  the  same  time,  and  so  unsusceptible  of  precise 
and  lucid  exhibition  ?  To  this  question,  no  discerning  and  candid 
mind  will  be  at  a  loss  for  an  answer.  No;  the  whole  of  that 
reasoning,  which  confidently  deduces  the  apostolical  origin  of 
prelacy,  from  its  acknowledged  and  general,  but  by  no  means 
universal,  prevalence  in  the  fourth  century,  is  mere  empty  decla- 
mation, as  contradictory  to  every  principle  of  human  nature,  as  it 
is  to  the  whole  current  of  early  history. 


(   214    ) 


LETTER   IX. 


PRACTICAL   INFLUENCE    OF    PRELACY— UNINTERRUPTED    SUCCESSION- 
RECAPITULATION— CONCLUDING  REMARKS. 


CHRISTIAN  BRETHREN, 

THE  practical  influence  of  any  doctrine,  has  been  generally 
considered  as  a  good  test  of  its  truth.  By  their  fruits  ye  shall 
know  them,  is  a  rule  which  applies  to  principles  as  well  as  to  men. 
Let  us  apply  this  rule  to  the  case  before  us.  If  prelacy  be  of 
exclusive  and  unalterable  divine  right :  If  it  be  so  essential,  that 
there  is  no  true  church,  no  authorized  ministry,  no  valid  ordinances 
without  it :  If  episcopal  churches  alone  are  in  covenant  with  Christ, 
in  the  appointed  road  to  heaven,  and  warranted  to  hope  in  the 
promises  of  God;  then  we  may  reasonably  expect  and  demand 
that  all  churches  of  this  denomination,  should  display  more  of  the 
spirit  of  Christ  than  any  other  classes  of  professing  Christians.  The 
blessing  of  God  is,  beyond  all  question,  most  likely  to  attend  those 
institutions  which  are  most  agreeable  to  his  will.  But  we  may  go 
further.  All  who  believe  the  Bible  will  acknowledge  that  there  is 
more  religion  in  the  church,  than  out  of  it ;  more  of  the  image  and 
love  of  the  Redeemer  among  his  covenanted  people,  than  among 
those  who  are  aliens  from  the  commonwealth  of  Israel,  and 
strangers  to  the  covenant  of  promise.  To  deny  this,  would  be  to 
call  in  question  every  promise  which  the  King  of  "Zion  has  made 
to  his  people,  and  every  advantage  of  union  with  him  as  their  head. 
Now  if  all  non-episcopal  societies  are  to  be  considered  as  mere 
uncoramanded  associations,  which  have  nothing  to  do  with  the 
church  of  Christ;  and,  if  union  with  that  church  is  a  privilege 
which  belongs  to  Episcopalians  alone ;  then  those  who  believe  this 


PRACTICAL  INFLUENCE  OF  PRELACY.        215 

doctrine,  are  bound,  on  every  Christian  principle,  to  show,  that 
episcopal  churches  contain  within  their  bosom  more  pure  and  un- 
defiled  religion,  more  harmony,  more  love  for  the  truth  as  it  is  in 
Jesus,  more  universal  holiness  of  heart  and  of  life,  than  any,  or 
than  all  other  religious  denominations.  But  is  this  in  fact  the  case  ? 
Will  the  friends  of  prelacy  undertake  to  show,  that  they  alone  give 
this  evidence  that  they  belong  to  Christ?  Will  they  even  under- 
take to  show,  that  Episcopalians  exhibit  in  a  pre-eminent  degree, 
this  praciical  testimony,  that  they  are  the  chosen  generation,  the 
peculiar  people,  who  are  purified  by  the  blood,  and  quickened  by 
the  spirit  of  the  Redeemer  ? 

The  efficacy  of  episcopal  government  in  securing  the  unity  of 
the  church,  in  guarding  against  schism,  and  in  promoting  harmony 
and  peace,  has  been  much  celebrated.  But  is  there  such  a  peculiar 
and  benign  efficacy  in  that  form  of  ecclesiastical  order?  I  am 
willing  to  refer  the  decision  of  this  question  to  any  man  who  is 
acquainted  with  ecclesiastical  history.  If  we  consult  Eusebius,  he 
will  present  us  with  a  picture  of  the  violence,  the  strife,  and  the 
divisions  among  bishops,  and  among  different  portions  of  the  church, 
through  their  means,  which  is  enough  to  make  a  Christian  weep. 
If  we  consult  Gregory  Nazianzen,  he  will  tell  us,  in  language 
before  quoted,  that  prelacy  "  has  caused  many  fruitless  conflicts  and 
"  bruises,  has  cast  many  into  the  pit,  and  carried  away  multitudes 
"  to  the  place  of  the  goats."  If  we  examine  the  history  of  any 
episcopal  church  on  earth,  we  shall  find  it  exhibiting,  to  say  the 
least,  as  large  a  share  of  heresy,  contention,  and  schism,  as  any 
which  bears  the  Presbyterian  form ;  and,  what  is  more,  we  shall 
ever  find  the  prelates  themselves  quite  as  forward  as  any  others, 
in  scenes  of  violence  and  outrage.  The  episcopal  professor 
Whitaker,  had  no  high  opinion  of  the  benign  effects  of  prelacy, 
when  he  declared,  that  if  this  form  of  government  were  introduced 
as  a  remedy  against  schism,  "  the  remedy  was  worse  than  the 
"  disease."  "  The  first  express  attempt,"  says  the  learned  Dr. 
Owen, "  to  corrupt  and  divide  a  church,  made  from  within  itself, 
"  was  that  in  the  church  of  Jerusalem,  made  by  Thebulis,  because 
"  Simon  Cleopas  was  chosen  bishop,  and  he  was  refused.  The 
"  same  rise  had  the  schisms  of  the  Novations  and  Donatists,  the 
"  heresies  &f  Arius  and  others/'  In  short,  the  animosities  and 
"  divisions  in  the  church  of  Christ,  which  have  taken  their  rise 


216  LETTER  IX. 

from  the  contending  interests,  the  lawless  ambition,  and  the  inde- 
cent strife  of  diocesan  bishops,  are  so  numerous,  that  history  is  full 
of  them  ;  and  so  disgusting  to  every  mind  imbued  with  the  spirit 
of  Christianity,  that  it  would  give  pain  even  to  an  opponent  to 
dwell  upon  the  subject.  But  further  ;  do  we  not  all  know  episco- 
pal churches,  at  the  present  day,  in  which  all  varieties  of  theological 
creeds  are  received,  from  the  purest  orthodoxy,  down  to  the  most 
blasphemous  heresies,  and  that  by  all  ranks  of  their  clergy,  as  well 
as  their  lay  members.  Is  this  that  unity  of  the  spirit  of  which  the 
Scriptures  speak  ?  Is  this  that  unity  which  constitutes  men  one 
body  in  Christ,  and  which  will  prepare  them  for  the  more  sublime 
and  perfect  union  of  the  church  triumphant  above? 

Again  ;  if  the  episcopal  church  alone  is  in  communion  with 
Christ ;  if  she  possesses  the  only  authorized  ministry,  and  the  only 
valid  ordinances  5  then  we  have  a  right  to  expect  that  she  will  pre- 
eminently display  the  purifying  effects  of  these  peculiar  privileges. 
For  if  the  Christian  ministry  and  ordinances  were  given  to  edify 
the  body  of  Christ,  and  are  the  great  instruments  which  God  does, 
in  fact,  employ  for  this  purpose,  as  both  Presbyterians  aud  Epis- 
copalians concur  in  believing ;  then  we  must  suppose  that  more, 
much  more,  of  their  sacred  influence  will  appear  among  those  who 
possess  these  precious  gifts,  than  among  those  who  possess  them 
not.  To  suppose  that  an  invalid  ministry  and  ordinances  will  be, 
in  general,  as  useful  in  their  effects,  as  those  which  are  valid,  is  to 
surrender  one  of  the  most  important  distinctions  between  truth  and 
error. 

Do  we,  then,  actually  find  in  episcopal  churches  more  real  and 
vital  religion,  than  in  other  churches  ?  Do  we  actually  find  among 
them  more  of  the  image  of  Christ ;  more  attachment  to  evangelical 
truth  ;  more  faithful  preaching  of  Jesus  Christ,  and  him  crucified; 
more  brotherly  love ;  more  pure  and  holy  living ;  more  care  to 
avoid  a  sinful  conformity  to  the  world ;  more  vigorous  and  scrip- 
tural discipline  ;  more  zeal  for  the  divine  glory  ;  and  a  temper  and 
conversation  more  suited  to  adorn  the  doctrine  of  God  our  Saviour, 
than  in  the  mass  of  non-episcopal  churches  ?  In  short,  are  episco- 
palians, as  a  denomination,  more  serious,  devout,  self-denied, 
benevolent,  meek,  forgiving,  and  heavenly-minded,  than  Presby- 
terians, as  a  denomination  ?  Perhaps  it  will  be  saidy  that  much 
of  what  we  call  vital  religion,  is  rather  superstitious,  and  that  with 


PRACTICAL  INFLUENCE  OP  PRELACY.        217 

respect  to  true  and  rational  piety,  there  is  full  as  much,  if  not 
more,  in  episcopal  than  in  other  churches.  On  this  question  I  will 
not  dwell  long.  By  real  religion,  I  mean  a  conformity  of  temper 
and  practice  with  that  system  of  evangelical  truth  which  is  exhibit- 
ed in  the  writings,  and  which  adorned  the  lives  of  bishop  Jeioel, 
bishop  Hall,  bishop  Davenant,  archbishop  Usher,  and  many  other 
illustrious  prelates  of  the  church  of  England,  of  former  ages  ;  that 
system  which  has  been  since  defended  and  exemplified  by  the 
Herveys,  the  Romaines,  the  Newtons,  the  Scolts.  and  a  multitude 
more  of  unmitred  divines  of  the  same  church,  in  later  times  ;  that 
evangelical  system  which  is  embodied  in  the  articles  of  that  church, 
and  which  breathes  in  the  greatest  part  of  her  liturgy  and  offices  ; 
that  system  which  exalts  the  divine  Redeemer  to  the  throne;  which 
places  the  penitent  sinner  in  the  dust,  at  his  footstool ;  which  teaches 
men  to  rely  solely  on  the  atoning  sacrifice  and  perfect  righteous- 
ness of  the  Saviour,  for  pardon  and  life;  and  which,  at  the  same 
time,  prompts  them  to  follow  holiness,  and  to  be  zealous  of  good 
works.  Is  there  more  of  this  kind  of  religion  in  episcopal  churches 
than  in  any  others  ?  I  cannot  suppose  that  there  is  a  single 
Episcopalian  in  our  country,  either  so  ill  informed  or  so  prejudiced, 
as  to  believe,  for  a  moment,  that  his  own  church  is  in  the  least 
degree  superior,  in  any  of  these  respects,  to  her  Presbyterian 
neighbours. 

But,  perhaps,  this  reasoning  will  be  objected  to  by  our  episcopal 
brethren.  They  will  tell  us,  that  there  is  often  a  wide  difference 
between  entertaining  correct  opinions,  and  pursuing  a  suitable  prac- 
tice ;  that  men  may  and  do  hold  the  truth  in  unrighteousness  ; 
and,  that  the  same  reasoning,  if  admitted,  would  prove  that  no  form 
of  religion  is  true,  because  in  every  church  we  may  find  many 
lukewarm  and  immoral  professors.  This  objection,  however,  is 
nothing  to  the  purpose.  It  is  merely  an  evasion  of  the  argument. 
We  all  daily  make  and  allow  the  distinction  between  principles, 
and  the  conduct  of  those  who  profess  them.  The  former  are  often- 
excellent,  while  the  latter  is  base.  We  protest,  and  with  the  strong- 
est reason,  against  the  conclusion,  that  religion  is  false,  because 
some  men  who  profess  to  believe  it  are  immoral ;  or  that  a  particu- 
lar church  is  not  a  true  church  of  Christ,  because  many  of  her  mem- 
bers act  in  a  manner  unworthy  of  their  profession.  But  our  rea- 
soning and  conclusion,  in  this  case,  are  wholly  of  a  different  kind. 
2  E 


218  LETTER  IX. 

We  only  contend,  that  the  ministry  and  the  ordinances  of  religion, 
which  claim  to  be  exclusively  valid,  ought  to  prove  themselves 
more  efficacious  than  those  which  are  destitute  of  validity.  We 
contend  that  there  is,  and  must  ever  be,  more  virtue  and  holiness 
in  the  church  of  Christ,  thanowJ  of  it.  We  contend,  in  short,  that 
in  that  household  of  God,  to  which  his  gracious  promises,  and  his 
life-giving  Spirit  are  vouchsafed,  while  we  shall  always  find  much 
corruption,  we  must  expect  to  find,  in  general,  much  more  of  the 
life  and  power  of  religion  ;  more  fervent  piety,  more  zeal  for  the 
interests  of  the  Redeemer's  kingdom,  and  more  righteousness  of 
life,  than  among  those  who  have  no  connexion  with  that  household. 
If  not,  wherein  is  the  greater  advantage  of  being  in  the  church,  than 
in  the  world  ?  Nor  do  we,  by  taking  this  ground,  furnish  either  an 
infidel  or  an  heretic  with  a  handle  against  us.  An  enemy  of  the 
gospel  may  come  into  all  of  our  churches,  and  point  to  some,  per- 
haps to  many,  of  our  members,  who  do  not  by  any  means  walkuwr- 
thy  of  the  vocation  wherewith  they  are  called.  Would  he  have  a 
right  from  this  fact,  to  infer  the  falsity  of  our  system  of  faith  ?  No  ; 
the  obvious  distinction  bet  ween  principles  and  the  conduct  of  those 
who  profess  them,  would,  if  he  were  a  candid  man,  prevent  him 
from  drawing  this  inference.  But  if  an  infidel  could  come  into  our 
solemn  assemblies,  even  the  purest  of  them,  and  not  only  assert, 
but  prove,  that  there  is  no  more  either  of  strict  morality  or  fervent 
piety,  among  the  professors  of  religion,  than  among  its  despisers  ; 
if  he  could  do  this,  then  indeed  he  might,  and  ought,  to  triumph 
over  us.  As  long  as  he  could  only  with  truth  say,  "Some  of  you 
"  Christians  are  as  bad  as  infidels  5"  I  would  confidently  reply, 
"  They  are  not  Christians  but  hypocrites  ;  for,  if  they  had  any 
portion  of  the  spirit  of  their  Master,  they  would  not  act  thus." 
But  if  he  could  really  make  it  appear  that  Christians  are  in  gene- 
ral, and  as  a  body,  in  no  respect  better  than  infidels,  he  would  cer- 
tainly establish  his  argument.  This,  however,  blessed  be  God! 
the  infidel  cannot  do;  and  the  very  circumstance  of  the  enemies  of 
Christianity  marking  with  such  eager  triumph,  «very  case  of  unwor- 
thy conduct  in  the  professors  of  religion,  shows  that,  in  their  opin- 
ion, Christian  principles  require  more  holiness  than  infidel  principles 
require,  and  are  expected  to  produce  more.  The  same  reasoning 
we  adopt  with  our  episcopal  brethren.  We  do  not  ask  them  to 
produce  perfection  in  their  church ;  we  do  not  ask  them  to  show, 


UNINTERRUPTED  SUCCESSION.  219 

that  all  their  members  act  conformably  with  their  principles  ;  but 
we  insist  upon  their  showing  that  there  is,  in  general,  a  much  larger 
portion  of  fervent  piety,  and  of  strict  morality,  ?n  their  church, 
than  in  any  of  the  non-episcopal  churches  ;  and  until  they  do  this, 
every  unprejudiced  man  will  consider  their  claim  of  being  alone 
"  in  covenant  with  Christ/'  as  unreasonable  as  it  is  unscriptural. 

It  does  not  affect  the  solidity  of  this  argument,  that  some  churches 
which  Presbyterians  consider  as  not  regularly  organized,  upon 
scriptural  principles,  nevertheless  embrace  in  their  bosom  a  large 
portion  of  unaffected  piety.  If  we  undertook  to  maintain  that  the 
Presbyterian  church  is  the  only  real  church  on  earth,  and  alone  in 
covenant  with  Christ  the  head,  such  a  fact  would,  indeed,  present 
a  difficulty  of  no  easy  solution.  But  we  make  no  such  arrogant 
claim.  Wherever  the  unfeigned  love  of  our  divine  Saviour,  an 
humble  reliance  on  his  atoning  sacrifice,  and  a  corresponding  holi- 
ness of  life,  pervade  any  denomination  of  Christians,  we  hail  them 
as  brethren  in  Christ ;  we  acknowledge  them  to  be  a  true  church  $ 
and  although  we  may  observe  and  lament  imperfections  in  their 
outward  government,  we  consider  them  as  truly  in  covenant  with 
the  King  of  ZTion,  as  ourselves.  All  this  is  perfectly  consistent  with 
believing,  as  we  do,  that  Presbyterian  church  government  was  the 
primitive  model,  and  that  it  is  the  duty  of  every  church  to  conform 
to  this  model.  It  is  certainly  the  duty  of  every  man  to  keep  the 
whole  law  of  God;  yet  as  we  do  not  deny  that  an  individual  professor 
is  a  real  Christian,  because  we  perceive  some  imperfections  in  his 
character ;  so  neither  do  we  deny  a  church  to  be  a  true  church  of 
Christ,  because  she  is  not  in  all  respects  conformed  to  our  ideas  of 
scriptural  purity.  We  consider  our  episcopal  brethren  as  having 
wandered  far  from  the  simplicity  of  apostolic  order.  But  what  then  ? 
Must  we  arrogantly  unchurch  them  on  that  account  ?  By  no  means. 
We  lament  their  deviation  ;  but  notwithstanding  this,  can  freely 
embrace  them  as  members  of  the  church  universal ;  and  were 
there  no  other  church  with  which  we  could  commune,  should  feel 
no  scruple  in  holding  communion  with  them  as  brethren. 

Those  who  contend  for  the  divine  right  of  diocesan  episcopacy, 
and  for  the  doctrine  of  uninterrupted  succession,  in  its  most  rigid 
form,  often  ask  us,  how  we  deduce  our  succession  in  the  ministry  ? 
They  profess  to  be  able  to  trace  their  own  line  of  ecclesiastical 


220  LETTER  IX. 

descent,  with  the  utmost  ease ;  and  gravely  present  us  with  long 
catalogues  of  bishops,  from  the  Apostles  down  to  the  present  day. 
Having  done  this,  they  demand  from  us  similar  catalogues,  and  a 
similar  deduction.  I  shall  not  attempt  at  present  to  discuss  the 
questions,  whether  such  succession  is  essential  to  the  Christian 
ministry  ;  and,  whether,  supposing  it  to  be  so,  it  can  be  distinctly 
traced  through  the  medium  of  regular  historical  documents,  from 
the  apostolic  age  to  the  present.  On  both  these  questions  the  most 
learned  and  pious  episcopal  divines  have  been  divided  in  opinion. 
ChiUingworth,  Barrow,  Bishop  Hoadley,  and  a  number  more, 
have  taken  the  negative  side  ;  pronouncing  the  claim  of  succession 
to  be  as  futile  as  it  is  unnecessary  ;  and  assailing  it  with  the  most 
pointed  ridicule,  as  well  as  with  formidable  arguments. 

But  without  entering  into  this  controversy,  I  will  take  for  grant- 
ed, that  the  uninterrupted  succession,  is  essential;  that  it  is  the 
only  channel  through  which  ministers  of  the  present  day  can  have 
the  apostolic  commission  transmitted  to  them.  Supposing  this  to 
be  the  case,  nothing  is  more  easy,  than  to  show,  on  presbyterian 
principles,  that  the  succession  in  our  church  is  as  distinct,  regular, 
and  unbroken,  as  that  of  the  episcopal  church. 

From  the  time  of  the  Apostles  to  the  aera  of  the  reformation,  our 
line  of  succession  is  certainly  as  good  as  theirs,  for  they  are  one 
and  the  same.  When  the  reformers  began  their  work,  they  found 
all  the  churches  of  Great  Britain  under  episcopal  government. 
Until  that -time,  therefore,  our  opponents  themselves  being  judges, 
a  regular  line  of  ordination  had  been  preserved.  If  there  be  any 
doubt  of  this,  it  is  a  doubt  which  as  much  affects  their  succession 
as  our  own.  In  short,  until  this  period,  the  two  lines  coincide, 
share  the  same  fortunes,  and  are  to  be  traced  by  the  same  means. 
When  the  reformation  began,  and  the  popish  doctrine  of  imparity 
was  discarded  by  a  considerable  portion  of  the  Christians  of  Britain, 
the  presbyters,  who  had  been  ordained  by  the  bishops,  undertook 
themselves  to  ordain  in  their  turn  /  and  from  them  it  is  as  easy  to 
trace  the  succession  in  the  line  of  presbyters,  as  it  is  for  our  epis- 
copal brethren  to  trace  it  in  the  line  of  diocesan  bishops.  Now  if, 
as  we  have  proved  in  the  foregoing  letters,  the  right  of  ordination, 
according  to  scripture  and  primitive  usage,  belongs  to  presbyters, 
it  is  evident  that  the  succession  through  them,  is  as  valid  as  any 
other :  or  rather,  to  speak  more  properly,  it  is  only  so  far  as  any 


RECAPITULATION.  221 

succession  flows  through  the  line  of presbyters,  that  it  is  either  regu- 
lar or  valid.  It  is  the  laying  on  of  the  hands  of  the  presbytery, 
that  constitutes  a  scriptural  ordination  ;  and  it  is  because  episcopal 
bishops  are  presbyters,  and  assisted  in  all  ordinations  by  other 
presbyters,  that  we  consider  their  ordaining  acts,  on  the  principles 
of  scripture  and  primitive  usage,  as  valid. 

I  have  now  presented,  within  as  narrow  limits  as  possible,  a 
sketch  of  the  arguments,  by  which  we  support  our  doctrine  of  the 
Christian  ministry.  Much  reasoning,  and  much  testimony  which 
would  have  served  to  strengthen  our  argument,  have  been  neces- 
sarily omitted.  But  enough  has  been  produced  to  establish  the 
apostolic  and  primitive  character  of  our  church. 

You  have  seen,  that  the  scriptures  contain  but  one  commission 
for  the  gospel  ministry;  that  bishop  and  presbyter  are  uniformly 
used  in  the  New  Testament  as  convertible  titles  for  the  same  office ; 
that  the  same  character  and  powers,  are  also  in  the  sacred  writings 
ascribed  interchangeably  to  bishops  and  presbyters,  thus  plainly 
establishing  their  indentity  of  order  as  well  as  of  name  ;  and  that 
the  Christian  church  was  organized  by  the  apostles,  after  the  model 
of  the  Jewish  synagogue,  which  was  undoubtedly  Presbyterian  in 
its  form. 

You  have  seen  that  all  arguments  which  our  episcopal  brethern 
profess  to  derive  from  scripture  in  favour  of  their  system,  are  per- 
fectly nugatory,  and  do  not  yield  it  the  least  solid  support. 

You  have  seen  that  the  fathers  of  the  first  two  centuries  are  so 
far  from  furnishing  a  single  passage  which  gives  even  a  semblance 
of  aid  to  the  episcopal  cause,  that,  like  the  scriptures,  they  every 
where  speak  a  language  wholly  inconsistent  with  it,  and  favourable 
only  to  the  doctrine  of  ministerial  parity. 

You  have  seen  that  the  great  body  of  the  reformers  and  other 
witnesses  for  the  truth,  of  different  ages  and  nations,  with  one  voice 
maintained  the  same  doctrine,  as  taught  in  scripture,  and  in  the 
primitive  church  ;  and  that  even  the  most  conspicuous  English 
reformers,  while  they  assisted  in  organizing  an  episcopal  establish- 
ment in  their  own  country,  defended  it  on  the  ground  of  human 
expediency,  and  the  will  of  the  magistrate,  rather  than  that  of 
divine  right. 

You  have  seen  that  the  church  of  England,  and  those  churches 


222  LETTER  IX. 

which  have  immediately  descended  from  her,  STAND  ABSOLUTELY 
ALONE,  IN  THE  WHOLE  PROTESTANT  WORLD,  in  representing  bishops 
as  an  order  of  clergy  superior  to  presbyters  ;  all  other  protest- 
ants,  even  those  who  adopt  a  sort  of  prelacy,  having  pronounced  it 
to  be  a  mere  human  invention. 

You  have  seen  some  of  the  most  learned  and  pious  bishops  and 
other  divines  of  the  church  of  England,  utterly  disclaiming  the 
divine  right  of  diocesan  episcopacy  ;  and  declaring  that  they  con- 
sidered a  great  majority  of  the  clergy  of  that  church,  in  later  as 
well  as  earlier  times,  as  of  the  same  opinion  with  themselves. 

Finally;  you  have  seen  that  the  gradual  introduction  of  prelacy, 
within  the  first  four  centuries,  was  not  only  practicable,  but  one 
of  the  most  natural  and  probable  of  all  events  ;  and  that  the  most 
competent  judges,  and  profound  inquirers  into  early  history,  have 
pronounced  that  it  actually  took  place. 

After  the  exhibition  of  testimony  so  various,  abundant,  and 
explicit,  I  cannot  suppose,  my  brethren,  that  any  of  you  can  have 
a  remaining  doubt.  This  testimony  not  only  establishes,  in  the 
most  perfect  manner,  the  validity  of  the  ordinations  and  the  mi- 
nistry of  our  church  ;  but  it  goes  further,  and  proves  that  they  are 
superior  to  those  of  our  episcopal  neighbours;  more  scriptural, 
more  conformable  to  primitive  usage,  and  possessing  more  of  that 
whole  character  which  is  fitted  to  satisfy  an  humble,  simple-hearted, 
Bible  Christian.  Be  not  moved,  therefore,  when  the  zealous  advo- 
cates for  the  divine  right  of  diocesan  episcopacy  charge  you  with 
schism,  for  being  out  of  the  communion  of  their  church,  and 
denounce  your  ministry  and  ordinances  as  invalid.  After  reading 
the  foregoing  sheets,  I  trust  you  will  be  prepared  to  receive  such 
charges  and  such  denunciations,  with  the  same  calm,  dispassionate, 
conscious  superiority,  that  you  feel  when  a  partizan  of  the  papacy 
denounces  you  for  rejecting  the  supremacy  of  the  pope,  and  ques- 
tions the  possibility  of  your  salvation  out  of  the  church  of  Rome. 
No,  brethren,  be  not  alarmed  !  there  is  nothing  in  their  claims  to 
intimidate  the  most  tender  conscience ;  nothing  to  excite  a  scruple 
in  the  most  cautious  mind.  Let  them  exhibit,  and  assert,  and 
reiterate  their  exclusive  pretensions,  with  all  the  confidence  of  zeal 
and  with  all  the  heat  of  disputation.  Let  none  of  these  things 


CONCLUDING    REMARKS.  223 

move  you.  You  are  already  in  the  bosom  of  a  church  as  nearly 
conformed  to  apostolic  order  as  any  on  earth.  If  the  testimony  of 
Scripture  ;  if  the  writings  of  the  fathers,  in  the  earliest  and  purest 
ages  of  the  church  5  if  the  weight  of  numbers,  of  piety,  and  of  learn- 
ing, throughout  the  protestant  world,  be  of  any  value,  they  are 
clearly  on  our  side.  Every  successive  step  that  I  take  in  this 
inquiry,  impresses  on  my  mind  a  deeper  conviction  of  the  truth  o*f 
my  principles,  and  of  my  obligation  to  bless  God  for  casting  my 
lot  in  the  Presbyterian  church. 

But,  brethren,  while  you  feel  this  confidence,  let  me  warn  you 
against  being  partakers  with  our  opponents  in  the  positiveness  and 
bigotry  which  some  of  them  manifest.  I  feel  much  satisfaction  in 
knowing  that  you  generally  cherish  the  most  liberal  sentiments 
towards  all  denominations  of  Christians  ;  that  you  are  disposed  to 
embrace  as  brethren  all  who  give  evidence  that  they  love  the  Lord 
Jesus  Christ  in  sincerity,  however  they  may  differ  from  you  in 
forms  of  worship,  or  in  modes  of  external  order.  Cultivate  to  a 
still  higher  degree  this  disposition,  so  ornamental  to  your  character 
as  Christians,  and  as  members  of  civil  society.  Let  no  provocation 
on  the  part  of  others  induce  you  to  abandon  it.  Remember  that 
you  are  not  yet  free  from  a  criminal  bigotry,  if  you  have  not  learn- 
ed to  bear  with  bigots.  It  is  a  difficult  lesson  ;  but  we  are  required 
to  learn  it.  You  will  not  consider  me  as  framing  an  apology  for 
error,  or  as  exhorting  you  to  look  upon  it  with  approbation.  It 
is  your  duty  to  contend  earnestly  for  the  faith  once  delivered  to 
the  saints.  But  "  let  us  not,"  to  use  the  language  of  the  amiable 
Ganganetti — a  language  more  honourable  to  him  than  the  triple 
crown — "  Let  us  not  lay  aside  charity  to  maintain  faith."  This  is 
never  necessary  ;  and  when  it  is  done,  is  always  the  effect  of  that 
unhallowed  Jire  in  which  our  Lord  has  declared  he  has  no 
pleasure. 

Even  if  our  episcopal  brethren  were  unanimous  in  maintaining 
and  urging  the  unscriptural  claim  which  has  been  refuted,  we 
ought  to  dismiss  all  bitterness  and  resentment,  and  as  much  as 
possible,  to  cherish  towards  them  a  spirit  of  conciliation  and 
respect.  But  my  firm  persuasion  is,  as  expressed  in  a  former  letter, 
that  scarcely  a  twentieth  part  of  that  sect  of  Christians  in  the  United 
States,  are  disposed  either  to  advance  or  concur  in  such  a  claim. 


224  LETTER  IX. 

It  is  the  delusion  of  a  few  only  ;  a  delusion  which  I  have  good 
reason  to  believe  is  rejected  and  reprobated,  by  the  great  body  of 
the  clergy,  as  well  as  the  laity  of  that  communion.  Let  me,  then, 
guard  you  againt  the  injustice  of  charging  on  a  whole  denomination 
the  odium  of  such  opinions.  Impute  them  to  none  but  those  who 
fasten  the  charge  on  themselves,  by  an  open  avowal.  Convince 
Episcopalians,  by  the  liberality  and  candour  of  your  deportment, 
that  you  have  no  prejudices  against  them  as  a  church.  And  even 
convince  those  who  embrace  every  opportunity  of  denouncing  your 
ministry  and  ordinances,  that  you  cannot  be  overcome  of  evil,  but 
that  you  know  how  to  overcome  evil  with  good. 

Numerous  are  the  considerations  which  press  upon  us  the  duty  of 
cultivating  peace  and  love  with  all  denominations  of  professing 
Christians.  A  bold  and  impious  infidelity  abounds.  We  are 
surrounded  with  thousands  who  not  only  neglect  but  despise  all 
religion.  How  will  it  rejoice  the  hearts  of  these  enemies  of  our 
common  faith,  to  see  those  who  profess  to  be  followers  of  the  same 
Master,  to  be  animated  by  the  same  spirit  of  love,  and  to  be  can- 
didates for  the  same  heaven,  either  avoiding  the  society  of  each 
other,  or  coming  together  only  to  deal  in  reciprocal  reproaches  and 
anathemas.  Be  it  YOUR  study,  brethren,  whatever  others  may  do 
to  give  none  occasion  to  the  adversary  to  speak  reproachfully. 
Let  it  be  apparent  to  all,  that  YOU  cherish  no  dispositions,  advance 
no  claims,  employ  no  language,  which  can  reasonably  disturb  the 
harmony  of  your  intercourse  with  other  Christians.  Let  it  be  seen 
that  you  know  how  to  esteem  those  who  differ  from  you,  as  well  as 
to  contend  for  the  truth  ;  and  to  cover  with  the  mantle  of  charity, 
that  which  you  cannot  approve.  There  is  a  charm  in  this  conduct, 
which  even  infidelity  itself  cannot  resist.  It  will  do  more  than  a 
thousand  carnal  weapons  to  put  to  silence  the  ignorance  of  foolish 
men,  and  to  "  extort  a  trembling  homage"  from  those  who  know 
not  God,  and  obey  not  the  gospel  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ. 

The  present  perturbed  state  of  the  world,  is  another  motive  to 
peace  and  love  among  Christians.  The  struggles  of  ambition, 
grasping  and  devouring  every  thing  within  its  reach  ;  the  desola- 
tions of  war,  widely  spread,  and  murderous  beyond  former  exam- 
ple ;  and  the  prevalence  of  those  selfish  and  ferocious  passions 
which  fill  the  earth  with  animosity,  hatred,  violence,  and  destruc- 


CONCLUDING  REMARKS.  225 

tion,  all  concur,  with  infidelity,  to  call  the  minds  of  men  away  from 
the  truth,  and  to  prevent- them  from  listening  to  the  benign  and 
heavenly  voice  of  religion.  Nor  is  this  all.  A  consideration  still 
more  solemn  presses  itself  upon  the  serious  mind.  Providence  has 
cast  our  lot  in  those  latter  days,  which  are  pre-eminently  charac- 
terised in  Scripture  as  perilous  times.  Trials  are  coming  on  the 
church,  which,  were  not  her  king  in  the  midst  of  her,  would  appal 
the  stoutest  heart.  Is  this  a  time  for  the  followers  of  Christ  to  be 
divided  ?  Is  this  a  time  for  them  to  fall  out  by  the  way,  and  to  bite 
and  devour  one  another  ?  Alas  !  no.  Under  these  circumstances, 
how  solemn  is  the  call  to  union  and  love  !  In  this  situation,  how 
obvious  is  the  duty  of  all  who  believe  the  gospel,  to  unite  in 
exhibiting  our  common  Christianity  to  mankind  in  her  meekest, 
loveliest,  and  most  attractive  form  !  How  honourable  might  not  such 
an  example  be  to  religion  !  how  ornamental  to  the  church  !  how 
confortable  to  ourselves  !  how  useful  to  our  troubled  world ! 

The  equal  rights  and  privileges  enjoyed  in  this  country,  by  all 
sects  of  Christians,  impose  on  them  an  additional  obligation  to  live 
together  in  harmony  and  peace.  Our  civil  government  makes 
no  discrimination  among  churches.  In  this  respect,  we  all  stand 
upon  a  level,  and  are  permitted  to  worship  God  according  to  the 
dictates  of  our  own  consciences,  having  none  to  molest  or  to  make 
us  afraid.  Under  these  happy  circumstances,  what  temptation  is 
there  to  cultivate  a  spirit  of  bigotry  or  contention  ?  Why  can  we 
not  quietly  and  meekly  enjoy  our  privileges  together  ?  Let  us  prove 
to  the  world,  that  there  is  something  in  the  spirit  of  Christianity 
which  enables  those  who  possess  it  to  differ  from  each  other  with 
more  mildness,  urbanity,  and  genuine  benevolence,  than  the 
wrangling  politicians  around  us 

Finally,  Christian  brethren,  remember  that  the  period  is  hasten- 
ing on,  when  all  the  real  followers  of  Christ  shall  meet  in  a  more 
harmonious  and  a  more  happy  world.  Oceans  now  roll  between 
them;  mountains  and  deserts  keep  them  asunder;  and  differences 
of  opinion  and  denomination,  often  more  inhospitable  than  the  most 
dreary  desert,  place  at  a  distance  from  each  other  those  for  whom 
Christ  died.  But  in  that  blessed  and  holy  society  which  you  are 
speedily  to  join ;  in  that  glorified  multitude  which  no  man  can 
number,  gathered  out  of  all  nations,  and  kindreds,  and  people, 
and  tongues,  these  differences  will  be  for  ever  unknown.  There 
2  F 


226  LETTER  IX. 

perfect  holiness  and  perfect  love  sjiall  reign  undisturbed  and  eter- 
nal. Let  this  happy  prospect  fill  you  with  the  tenderest  love  to 
all  who  bear  the  image  of  Christ ;  let  it  comfort  you  amidst  the 
contentions  and  divisions  of  the  present  imperfect  state  ;  and  let  it 
excite  you  daily  to  cherish  those  dispositions  which  will  form  the  best 
preparation  for  that  kingdom  where  all  Christians  shall  appear  to 
each  other,  what  they  are  in  fact,  one  body  in  Christ,  and  every 
one  members  one  of  another. 


END   OF  PART  I. 


LETTERS 


COWCEUITINO 


THE    CONSTITUTION    AND    ORDER 


OF 


BY  SAMUEL  MILLER,  D.  D. 


PART  II. 


LETTERS 


THE  CHRISTIAN  MINISTRY. 


LETTER  I. 

INTRODUCTORY  REMARKS. 

CHRISTIAN  BRETHREN, 

IT  is  more  than  two  years  since  I  addressed  you  in  a  series  of 
"  Letters  on  the  Constitution  and  Order  of  the  Christian  Ministry, 
"  as  deduced  from  Scripture  and  Primitive  Usage."  The  resolu- 
tion to  call  your  attention  to  that  subject  was  reluctantly  formed, 
after  much  deliberation,  and  in  compliance  with  what  appeared  to 
me  an  evident  and  imperious  demand  of  duty.  A  love  of  contro- 
versy makes  no  part  of  my  character.  Neither 'my  taste  nor  my 
talents  are  by  any  means  suited  to  the  field  of  contention.  But 
when  a  minister  of  the  gospel  perceives  any  thing  which  is  likely 
to  have  an  unfriendly  influence  on  the  church  of  Christ,  to  which 
he  has  solemnly  devoted  himself,  every  consideration  of  faithfulness 
forbids  him  to  be  idle.  Such  influence  I  saw,  or  thought  I  saw, 
was  likely  to  result  from  certain  publications,  and  other  efforts, 
which  had  been  made  by  some  respectable  individuals  among  our 
episcopal  brethren,  in  this  city,  anxd  in  different  parts  of  the  state, 
for  several  years  preceding.  The  nature  and  tendency  of  these 
efforts  are  well  understood  by  many  of  you,  but  they  ought  to  be 
understood  by  all. 

For  more  than  twenty  years  after  the  establishment  of  American 
Independence,  the  Presbyterians  of  New  York  dwelt  in  peace  and 
harmony  with  their  episcopal  neighbours.  They  well  recollected, 
indeed,  the  long  course  of  oppressions  and  provocations  which  they 


230  LETTER  1. 

had  suffered,  by  means  of  episcopal  influence,  prior  to  the  revolu- 
tion. They  recollected  that,  for  more  than  half  a  century,  besides 
supporting  their  own  churches,  they  had  been  forced  to  contribute  to 
the  support  of  the  episcopal  church,  already  enriched  and  strength- 
ened by  governmental  aid.  They  recollected  in  how  many 
instances  the  fairest  and  most  laudable  exertions  to  promote  the 
interest  of  their  denomination,  were  opposed,  thwarted,  and  frus- 
trated, by  the  direct  interference  of  the  same  favoured  sect.  But 
when  our  national  independence  and  equal  rights  became  estab- 
lished ;  when  all  denominations  of  Christians  were  placed  on  the 
same  footing,  with  respect  to  the  state,  and  left  to  enjoy  their  privi- 
leges together,  the  Presbyterians  were  disposed  to  forget  every 
injury;  to  cover  every  former  subject  of  uneasiness  with  the  mantle 
of  charity  5  to  dwell  in  equal  concord  and  love  with  their  brethren 
of  every  name.  It  was  not  supposed,  indeed,  during  this  period  of 
tranquillity,  that  Presbyterians  and  Episcopalians  were  agreed  in 
their  iews  either  of  evangelical  truth,  or  of  ecclesiastical  order  ;  or 
that  they  considered  all  the  points  in  which  they  differed  as  of 
small  importance.  But  while  both  thought  for  themselves,  and 
pursued  their  own  views  of  doctrine  and  worship,  they  avoided  an 
unnecessary,  and  especially,  an  irritating  and  offensive  obtrusion 
of  their  points  of  difference;  and,  above  all,  never  seem  to  have 
thought,  on  either  side,  of  that  system  of  proscription  and  attack, 
which  our  episcopal  brethren  have  since  chosen  to  commence. 

The  formal  and  open  commencement  of  this  system  may  be 
dated  in  the  year  1804.  Previous  to  that  period,  indeed,  several 
sermons,  and  other  fugitive  pamphlets,  had  evinced  a  disposition  on 
the  part  of  some  individuals,  to  revive  and  urge  certain  claims,  as 
unfounded  in  scripture  as  they  are  offensive  to  liberal  minds.  But 
in  that  year  there  appeared,  in  the  city  of  New  York,  the  first  of  a 
series  of  larger  publications,  which  evidently  had  for  their  object  a 
system  of  more  bold  and  decisive  proscription  than  had  been  ven- 
tured upon  for  a  considerable  time  before.  These  publications, 
among  other  doctrines,  were  professedly  intended  to  maintain  and 
disseminate  the  following,  viz.  "  That  the  power  of  ordination  to 
"  the  Christian  ministry  is,  by  divine  appointment,  vested  exclusive- 
"  ly  in  diocesan  bishops  ;  that  where  these  bishops  are  wanting, 
"  there  is  no  authorized  ministry,  no  true  church,  no  valid  ordi- 
<£  nances  ;  that,  of  course,  the  Presbyterian,  and  all  other  non-epis- 


INTRODUCTORY  REMARKS.  231 

"  copal  churches,  and  ministers,  are  not  only  unauthorized,  and 
"  perfectly  destitute  of  validity,  but  are  to  be  viewed  as  institutions 
"  founded  in  rebellion  and  schism  ;  and  that  all  who  are  in  com- 
"  munion  with  such  non-episcopal  churches,  are  aliens  from  Christ," 
"  out  of  the  appointed  road  to  heaven,"  have  no  interest  in  the 
promises  of  God,  and  no  hope  but  in  his  "  uncovenanted  mercy  " 
"  which  may  be  extended  to  them,  in  common  with  the  serious  and 
{l  conscientious  heathen."  Books  containing  doctrines  of  this  kind 
had  been  published  and  sent  abroad  with  much  assiduity,  for  more 
than  a  year,  before  any  Presbyterian  came  forward  to  refute  them, 
or  to  vindicate  primitive  simplicity  and  order  ;  and  since  that  time, 
similar  books  have  been  printed,  re-printed,  new  modelled,  and 
circulated,  especially  in  the  city  and  sjtate  of  New  York,  with  a 
degree  of  zeal  and  perseverance  altogether  new  and  extraordinary. 

Nor  is  this  all.  These  books  have  been  put  into  the  hands  of 
non-episcopalians.  Presbyterians  have  been  personally  addressed 
on  the  subject,  and  attempts  made  to  seduce  them  from  their  church, 
on  the  express  allegation  that  they  were  totally  destitute  of  an 
authorized  ministry,  and  of  valid  ordinances.  And,  that  nothing 
might  be  wanting  to  fix  the  character  and  purpose  of  these  measures, 
they  were  accompanied  with  declarations,  that  a  state  of  warfare 
with  the  Presbyterian  church,  on  the  subject  of  episcopacy,  was 
earnestly  wished  for,  and  considered  as  one  of  the  most  probable 
means  of  promoting  the  episcopal  cause. 

It  was  not  possible  for  one  denomination  of  Christians  to  act  in 
a  more  inoffensive  manner  towards  another,  than  we  had  uniformly 
done  towards  our  episcopal  brethren.  We  had  never  attempted 
to  unchurch  them.  We  had  never,  directly  or  indirectly,  called 
in  question  the  validity  of  their  ministrations  or  ordinances.  We 
had  never,  on  any  occasion,  obtruded  our  particular  views  of 
church  order,  as  essential  either  to  the  being  or  prosperity  of  the 
body  of  Christ.  .On  the  contrary,  whenever  we  had  occasion, 
from  the  pulpit  or  the  press,  to  instruct  our  people  on  those  points 
in  which  we  differ  from  Episcopalians,  it  was  always  done  in  a 
manner  respectful  and  conciliatory,  and  perfectly  consistent  with 
acknowledging  them  as  a  sister  church  ;  a  sister,  by  no  means,  in- 
deed, incur  estimation,  free  from  error  5  but  yet  sufficiently  near  the 
primitive  model  to  be  regarded  as  a  church  of  Christ.  All  this, 


232  LETTER  I.  • 

however,  did  not  secure  us  from  the  treatment  of  which  you  have 
heard.  » 

Under  these  circumstances,  when  we  were  virtually  denounced 
and  excommunicated  ;  when  the  name  of  a  Christian  church  was 
denied  us  5  when  our  people  were  warned  to  abandon  the  ministry 
of  their  pastors,  under  the  penalty  of  being  regarded  as  rebels  and 
schismatics  both  by  God  and  man  ;  when  more  than  insinuations 
of  this  kind  were  presented  and  reiterated,  from  the  pulpit  and  the 
press,  on  every  practicable  occasion,  and  in  almost  every  possible 
variety  of  form  ;  when,  by  the  frequency  and  the  confidence  with 
which  they  were  brought  forward,  some  in  our  communion  were 
perplexed,  others,  more  discerning  and  better  infofmed,  rendered 
indignant,  and  all  appeared  to  feel  the  propriety  of  vindicating  the 
abused  ordinances  of  Christ ;  it  became  at  least  excusable  to  say 
something  in  our  own  defence.  It  was  no  bitterness  against  our 
episcopal  brethren  ;  no  love  of  controversy ;  no  restless  ambition ; 
no  desire  to  intrude  into  another  denomination  for  the  purpose  of 
making  proselytes,  that  dictated  an  attempt  to  justify  our  prin- 
ciples. The  attempt  was  purely  defensive,  and  was  demanded  by 
every  consideration  of  duty  to  the  souls  of  men,  and  of  fidelity  to 
our  Master  in  heaven. 

Impressed  with  this  conviction,  I  addressed  to  you  my  Letters 
on  the  Christian  Ministry.  Such  a  manual  appeared  to  me  to  be 
much  wanted  ;  a  manual  which  was  intended  to  present  a  concise 
view  of  the  whole  subject,  without  the  useless  appendages,  and  the 
offensive  recriminations  which  have  been  too  frequently  admitted. 
In  composing  this  work,  it  was  my  sincere  aim  to  render  it  as  free 
from  every  thing  personal  or  irritating  as  possible.  Accordingly 
I  attacked  no  particular  writer.  I  avoided  even  mentioning  the 
name  of  any  American  who  had  written  in  opposition  to  that 
apostolic  truth  and  order  which  we  maintain.  My  arguments 
were  stated,  as  far  as  the  nature  of  the  undertaking  admitted,  in 
the  abstract ;  and  a  studious  care  was  exercised  to  exhibit  the 
whole  in  language  of  the  most  mild  and  conciliatory  character.  In 
all  this  it  was  not  supposed  that  offence  could  reasonably  be  taken 
by  any,  and  least  of  all  by  our  episcopal  brethren.  As  they  had 
been  in  the  habit,  for  several  years  before  the  appearance  of  my 
volume,  of  publishing,  and  distributing,  even  beyond  the  bounds  olf 
their  own  society,  books,  in  which  the  episcopal  doctrine  was 


INTRODUCTORY  REMARKS.  233 

warmly  urged,  and  Presbyterian  principles  loaded  with  opprobri- 
ous epithets  ;  it  was  supposed  that  they  would  scarcely  think  it 
very  consistent  or  decent  to  attack  with  violence,  if  at  all,  a  pub- 
lication so  moderate,  so  respectful,  and  so  exclusively  intended  for 
Presbyterians.  It  was,  therefore,  my  prevailing  expectation,  that 
the  work  would  be  considered  as  not  belonging  to  the  polemic  class 
and  would  be  suffered  to  pass  without  a  reply. 

But  in  this  I  was  mistaken.  With  all  the  mildness  and  inoffen- 
siveness  of  their  character,  my  letters  no  sooner  made  their 
appearance,  than  murmurs  of  resentment,  and  threats  of  over- 
whelming refutation  were  heard  from  various  quarters.  These 
threats  had  not  been  long  proclaimed,  before  attempts  were  made 
to  fulfil  them.  The  first  who  presented  himself  before  the  public, 
as  an  assailant,  was  Mr.  Thomas  Y.  How  (since  the  Rev.  Mr. 
How,  of  New  York?)  who,  in  about  six  months  after  the  publication 
of  my  volume,  produced  an  angry  and  vehement  pamphlet,  which 
he  announced  as  introductory  to  a  more  full  discussion  of  the  sub- 
ject. t  Mr.  How,  after  an  interval  of  six  months  more,  was  followed 
by  the  Rev.  Dr.  Bowden,  Professor  of  Moral  Philosophy,  Logic, 
and  Belles  Lettres  in  Columbia  College.  This  gentleman,  who 
had  been  long  versed  in  the  episcopal  controversy,  and  who,  more 
than  twenty  years  ago,  stepped  forth  as  a  champion  of  the  hierarchy, 
did  me  the  honour  again  to  take  the  field  against  me,  and  under- 
took in  a  work,  at  least  formidable  in  size,  to  give  a  complete 
refutation  of  all  my  arguments,  and  to  prostrate  the  Presbyterian 
cause.  About  the  same  time  with  Dr.  Bowderi's  two  volumes, 
there  appeared,  on  the  same  side,  and  with  the  same  object,  the 
first  of  a  series  of  letters  addressed  to  me  by  the  Rev.  Dr.  Kemp, 
Rector  of  Great  Choptank,  in  Maryland.  And,  finally,  with  this 
number,  the  Rev,  Dr.  Hobart  has  united  himself,  as  an  occasional 
remarker  on  my  letters,  in  the  Churchman's  Magazine,  published 
in  the  city  of  New  York,  for  the  contents  of  which  he  acknowledges 
himself,  both  as  editor  and  proprietor,  to  be  responsible. 

To  be  fallen  upon  by  so  many  assailants,  and  with  so  much 
vehemence,  is  a  compliment  as  great  as  it  was  unexpected.  My 
thanks  are  due  to  these  gentlemen  for  conferring  on  my  work  a 
degree  of  importance,  and  unwittingly  disclosing  that  it  has  made 
a  degree  of  impression,  which  I  had  never  ventured  to  anticipate 
or  to  claim.  I  have  also  to  thank  them  for  another  favour.  Their 
2  G 


234  LETTER  I. 

violent  attncks,  and  their  numerous  cavils,  have  induced  me  to 
examine  the  subject  with  more  care,  and  to  pursue  my  inquiries 
lespecting  it  to  a  greater  extent  than  I  should  probably  otherwise 
have  done.  The  result  is,  a  deeper  conviction  than  ever  of  the 
weakness  of  their  cause,  and  of  the  apostolic  character  of  our 
church. 

With  respect  to  Mr.  How's  pamphlet,  it  is  written  with  so  much 
heat  and  impetuosity  ;  discovers  such  a  singular  want  of  acquaint- 
ance with  radical  parts  of  the  subject;  and  breathes  a  spirit  so 
evidently  calculated,  with  all  sober  and  impartial  readers,  to  dis- 
credit the  author  himself,  more  than  the  object  of  his  attack  ;  that 
my  first  resolution,  as  well  as  the  general  advice  of  my  friends,  was 
to  let  it  pass  unnoticed.  I  could  scarcely,  indeed,  form  a  more 
selfish  wish  than  that  all  my  opponents  might  write  thus.  And  it 
is  certain  that  Mr.  How  would  never  have  received  a  syllable  of 
public  reply  from  me,  had  there  been  any  reason  to  suppose  that 
his  work  would  fall  into  the  hands  of  none  but  the  discerning  and 
well-informed.  Recollecting,  however,  that  all  readers  are  not 
qualified  to  distinguish  between  assertion  and  proof,  between  lofty 
assumption  and  solid  argument,  I  felt  doubtful  whether  some 
remarks  might  not  be  usefully  made,  especially  on  some  of  the 
more  extraordinary  and  exceptionable  parts  of  his  book.  The 
appearance  of  Dr.  Bowden's  work  terminated  my  doubts.  This 
work,  written  in  a  style  of  more  calmness,  and  rather  more  decorum 
than  Mr.  How's;  more  respectable  on  the  score  of  sober  and  grave 
reasoning ;  and  discovering  more  acquaintance  with  the  subject, 
appeared  to  me  entitled  to  some  reply.  In  making  this  reply,  I 
determined  to  bring  into  one  view,  the  most  material  allegations 
and  reasonings  of  all  the  gentlemen  who  have  honoured  me  with 
their  notice  ;  and,  as  they  have  taken  care  to  praise  and  quote  each 
other,  they  cannot  be  displeased  at  being  associated  together  in  my 
remarks. 

And  in  the  first  place,  my  acknowledgments  are  due  to  these 
gentlemen,  and  particularly  to  Mr.  How,  for  being  so  kind  as  to 
remove  all  uncertainty  with  respect  to  the  real  nature  of  the  opi- 
nions, which  they  hold.  Dr.  Bowden,  it  is  true,  does  not  appear 
very  fond  of  committing  himself  by  explicit  avowals  ;  but  Mr.  How 
manifests  no  scruple  in  declaring,  in  his  usual  "  masterly"  manner, 
that  he  considers  Presbyterian  clergymen  as  having  no  more  right 


INTRODUCTORY  REMARKS.  235 

to  administer  sacraments,  or  to  ordain,  than  so  many  "  Jm/men  or 
women  ,•"  tliat  all  ilieir  ministrations  are  pprfertfi/  unnut/torisfvl 
and  void  ;  that  without  episcopal  ordination,  th»'i?  is  no  iiiiii'xtry, 
no  church  ;  that  no  case  of  necessity,  however  extreme,  ran  justify 
any  minister  or  body  of  ministers,  in  attfmptini!  to  ordnin  others, 
or  to  form  churches,  without  the  intervention  of  a  prelate's  hands  ; 
and  that  all  who  are  not  in  communion  with  an  episcopal  bishop 
are  out  of  the  church,  and  have  no  covenanted  title  to  salvation. 
Letters,  p.  16.  68,  and  elsewhere.  Mr.  How  also  lets  us  know 
that  Dr.  Bowden  holds  similar  opinions,  p.  68.;  and  truly  the 
doctor  himself  repeatedly  uses  language  which  admits  of  no  other 
construction.  It  is  agreeable  to  find  opponents  thus  candid  and 
explicit.  We  now  know  the  nature  of  the  claim  which  these  gen- 
tlemen advance,  and  of  course,  how  to  meet  them.  I  am  happy 
also  to  perceive,  that  in  my  former  publication,  I  have  neither  mis- 
represented nor  exaggerated  their  sentiments.  They  are  precisely 
such  as  I  ascribed  to  the  third,  or  highest-toned  class  of  Episcopa- 
lians. It  is  to  the  claims  of  this  class  only,  and  not  to  the  mode- 
rate and  liberal  part  of  that  denomination,  that  the  reasonings  in  the 
following  sheets  are  intended  to  apply. 

But  while  these  gentlemen  are  very  undisguised  and  decided  in 
advancing  their  claims,  they  write  in  a  manner  strangely  vague  and 
obscure  on  another  point.  Even  admitting, (what  we  cannot  admit, 
for  we  know  the  contrary,)  that  the  question  whether  episcopacy 
was  in  fact,  the  primitive  constitution  of  the  church,  were  decided 
in  favour  of  our  episcopal  brethren  ;  still  another  question  remains? 
viz.  Is  a  compliance  with  that  constitution  so  unalterably  and 
indispensably  binding  on  the  church,  that  there  can  be  no  church, 
no  ministry,  no  ordinances  without  it  ?  These  questions  are  totally 
distinct,  and  ought  never  to  be  confounded.  Yet  Dr.  Bowden  and 
Mr.  How  almost  uniformly  confound  them  ;  and  seem  to  think  that 
if  the  former  question  be  answered  in  the  affirmative,  the  latter 
must  of  course  be  answered  in  a  similar  manner.  In  a  few  instances, 
indeed,  they  admit  the  distinction  to  which  I  allurle,  and  assert, 
that  their  only  object  is  to  establish  the  apostolical  institution  of 
episcopacy,  without  undertaking  to  pronounce  on  the  consequences 
of  rejecting  it.  But  it  is  evident  that,  for  the  most  part,  they 
entirely  lose  sight  of  this  distinction,  and  write  as  if  the  establish- 
ment of  the  fact,  that  prelacy  existed  in  the  primitive  church,  must 


236  LETTER  I. 

effectually  destroy  the  character  of  all  churches  not  found  in  pos- 
session of  that  form  of  government.  Whether  these  positions  so 
totally  distinct  are  so  generally  confounded  by  my  opponents  for 
want  of  clear  and  distinguishing  views,  or  with  design,  I  presume 
not  to  say.  But  every  discerning  reader  will  be  on  his  guard 
against  impositions  from  either  source. 

These  gentlemen,  indeed,  themselves  assert,  with  the  whole  body 
of  episcopal  writers,  that  the  apostles  never  intended  to  lay  down 
a  model  of  church  government,  which  should  be,  in  all  its  parts, 
perpetually  binding  :  and,  of  course,  that  the  church  is  not  bound 
to  be,  in  all  respects,  conformed  to  the  apostolic  model.  I  am  not 
now  inquiring  whether  this  doctrine  be  correct  or  not.  But  if  it  be, 
how  can  the  want  of  prelacy  destroy  the  character  and  even  the 
existence  of  the  church?  In  what  part  of  scripture  is  it  said,  that 
every  other  part  of  the  apostolic  government  of  the  church  is 
mutable,  and  may  be  modified  by  human  wisdom ;  but  that  dis- 
pensing with  the  single  point  of  bishops,  is  fatal  to  the  whole?  My 
opponents,  then,  even  on  their  own  principles,  are  far  from  having 
accomplished  the  task  which  they  prescribed  to  themselves.  They 
have  never  shown,  and  are  not  able  to  show,  that  prelacy  was 
instituted  by  the  apostles ;  but  even  if  they  could,  many  links 
would  still  be  wanting  in  the  chain  of  proof,  that  this  form  of  go- 
vernment is  so  necessary,  that  there  can  be  no  church  without  it. 

Mr.  How  endeavours  to  represent  my  work  as  an  unprovoked 
attack  on  the  episcopal  church,  and  to  throw  upon  it  all  the  odium 
of  aggression.  To  those  who  are  acquainted  with  the  incontro- 
vertible facts  stated  in  the  beginning  of  this  letter,  such  a  represent- 
ation will  appear  something  more  than  strange  !  If  to  state  and 
defend  the  principles  of  my  own  church,  after  they  had  been  fre- 
quently and  violently  attacked ;  if  a  calm  and  respectful  plea  against 
a  sentence  of  excommunication  from  the  church  of  Christ;  if  an 
attempt  to  show,  that  we,  as  Presbyterians,  are  not  aliens  from  the 
commonwealth  of  Israel,  and  strangers  to  the  covenant  of  pro- 
mise;  if  a  work  designed  to  prove  that  our  ministry  and  ordinances 
have  as  fair  a  claim  to  divine  warrant  as  those  of  our  episcopal 
brethren  ;  and  that  they,  in  denying  us  the  character  of  a  church, 
and  in  consigning  us  over,  with  the  heathen,  to  the  uncovenanted 
mercies  of  God,  act  wholly  without  warrant — if  these  things  con- 
stitute an  unprovoked  attack  on  the  episcopal  church— then,  indeed. 


INTRODUCTORY  REMARKS.  237 

I  have  been  guilty  of  such  an  attack.  But  I  am  not  afraid  that  any 
one  who  is  acquainted  with  facts,  and  who  understands  the  import 
of  terms,  will  either  bring  such  a  charge  himself,  oi*  consider  it  with 
respect  when  brought  by  others. 

Another  charge  which  these  gentlemen  concur  in  urging,  is  no 
less  unexpected  and  extraordinary.  It  is,  that  I  have  written  with 
great  bitterness,  and  that  even  my  moderation  is  affected  and 
insidious.  This  is  a  point  concerning  which  no  man  can  be  an 
impartial  judge  in  his  own  case.  But,  after  receiving  so  many 
respectable  suffrages  in  favour  of  the  mildness  and  decorum  of  my 
style  ;  after  receiving  the  acknowledgments  of  so  many  moderate 
and  candid  Episcopalians  in  different  parts  of  the  United  States, 
both  clergymen  and  laymen,  that  I  had  avoided  asperity  and  bitter- 
ness to  a  very  unusual  degree  ;  it  is  impossible  to  avoid  suspecting 
that  these  gentlemen,  (who  so  far  as  I  know  stand  alone  in  making 
this  charge,)  have  felt  irritated  by  statements  which  they  could  not 
deny,  and  by  arguments  which  they  could  not  refute ;  and  that 
they  have  mistaken  both  for  bitterness  and  abuse.  Dr.  Bowden 
and  Mr.  How  never  discover  so  much  wounded  feeling  and  irasci- 
ble temper,  as  when  they  meet  with  intimations  of  any  affinity 
between  some  of  their  high-toned  doctrines,  and  those  at  popery. 
The  intimations  of  this  kind  which  my  book  contains,  were  made 
neither  lightly,  nor  with  passion  ;  but  with  a  conscientious  persua- 
sion of  their  correctness.  This  persuasion  remains  with  undimi- 
nished  or  rather  with  increased  force.  And  it  happens,  unfortu- 
nately for  these  gentlemen,  that  similar  charges  of  popish  origin  and 
tendency,  have  been  brought  against  several  of  the  same  doctrines, 
by  some  of  the  most  pious  and  learned  bishops  of  their  own  church. 
Nor  can  I  forbear  to  add,  that  the  pointed  resentment  which  my 
opponents  manifest  at  every  suggestion  of  this  kind,  is  calculated 
to  excite  the  suspicion,  that  they  feel  it  more  easy  to  rail  at  such 
intimations  than  to  answer  them. 

But  Dr.  Bowden  makes  a  further  complaint,  which  is  still  more 
extraordinary.  He  thinks  me  very  censurable  for  not  having 
stated,  in  addition  to  the  arguments  in  support  of  our  opinions,  the 
principal  answers,  "  the  triumphant  replies,"  which  episcopal  wri- 
ters have  given  to  these  arguments.  In  one  case,  pjarticularly,  he 
addresses  me  thus :  "You  certainly  must  have  heard  of,  if  you  have 


238  LETTER  I. 

«  not  read,  Slater's  Original  Draught,  in  answer  to  lord  King, 
"  which  it  has  always  been  confidently  said,  made  his  lordship  a 
v-  convert  to  diocesan  episcopacy.  If  you  have  heard  of  Slater's 
"  book,  but  not  read  it,  you  should  have  made  a  point  of  procuring 
t(  it,  and  of  stating  his  answer,  that  your  readers  might  have  a 
"  fair  opportunity  of  judging  for  themselves.77  Vol.  I.  Letter  7-  p. 
186.  I  can  assure  this  learned  professor,  who  so  kindly  undertakes 
to  instruct  me  in  my  duty,  that  I  both  possessed  and  had  read 
Slater's  work,  long  before  1  ever  heard  of  Dr.  Bowden  or  his  Let- 
ters; and  that,  however  it  impressed  lord  King,  it  was  so  far  from 
converting  me  to  diocesan  episcopacy,  that  it  rather  served  to  con- 
firm me  in  my  Presbyterian  principles.  But  is  it  possible  that  this 
complaint  of  Dr,  Bowden  can  be  seriously  made  ?  Did  I  not  dis- 
tinctly announce,  in  my  introductory  letter,  that  my  object  was, 
not  to  write  a  full  and  complete  treatise,  but  a  small  and  popular 
manual  ?  Did  I  not  fairly  apprize  ray  readers,  that  this  plan 
would  "  lay  me  under  the  necessity  of  being  every  where  extremely 
"  brief,  and  of  totally  excluding  many  topics,  both  of  argument  and 
"  illustration,  which  might  be  profitably  introduced  ?  "  And  did  I 
not,  to  relieve  in  some  measure,  the  difficulty  thence  arising,  pro- 
mise, that  "  no  arguments  should  be  urged,  but  those  which  I 
"believed  to  have  stood  immovably  solid,  after  every  attempt  to 
"  answer  them  ?  '7  Was  it  my  duty,  then ;  would  it  have  been 
proper,  after  all  this,  when  I  felt  myself  obliged  to  omit  many  argu- 
ments on  my  own  side,  which  were,  in  my  view,  powerful  and 
important  5  to  introduce  arguments,  many  of  them  frivolous,  and 
most  of  them  destitute  of  real  force,  merely  for  the  purpose  of 
swelling  my  work  into  a  number  of  volumes,  and  preventing  it 
from  being  read  by  those  for  whom  it  was  intended  ?  I  have  the 
charity  to  believe,  that  if  Dr.  Bowden,  had  indulged  a  moment's 
reflection,  he  would  have  been  ashamed  to  urge  a  complaint  so 
unworthy  of  his  grave  character. 

Besides,  if  it  was  my  duty  to  state  in  detail  all  those  arguments 
which  the  fond  partiality  of  some  episcopal  writers  has  been  pleas- 
ed to  style  "unanswerable,7'  "  triumphant,"  "  demonstrative,77  &c. 
was  it  not  Dr.  Bowden's  duty  to  do  the  same  with  respect  to  the 
arguments  of  Presbyterian  writers?  But  has  he  done  this?  If  I 
do  not  mistake,  every  impartial  reader  will  pronounce,  that  in  my 


INTRODUCTORY  REMARKS.  239 

little  manual,  I  have  gone  as  far,  if  not  further,  in  stating  the  argu- 
ments and  replies  of  my  opponents,  than  this  gentleman  has  in  his 
two  volumes. 

These  gentlemen,  in  the  course  of  their  strictures,  have  allowed 
themselves  frequently  to  employ  language  of  which  I  cannot  for- 
bear to  exhibit  a  specimen.     Dr.  Bowden  charges  me  with  "  con- 
temptible cavilling  ;  with  "  contemptible  puerilities ;"  with  "misre- 
presentations gross  to  excess  ;"  with  writing  "nonsense,"  "  palp- 
able nonsense,"  &c.  &c.  &c.     Mr.  How's  pamphlet  abounds  with 
language,  which  I  hope  he  will  reconsider,  in  his  cooler  moments, 
with  shame  and  regret.     He  charges  me  with  "a  continued  strain 
of  misrepresentation  ;"  with  "  an  outrage  of  decency  itself;"  with, 
a  construction  "  as  puerile  as  it  is  disengenuous ;"  with  "  fanatical 
absurdities;"  with  "  violations  of  the  plain  language  of  scripture,  as 
presumptuous  as  are  to  be  met  with  in  the  entire  annals  of  fanaticism;" 
with  ''talking  like  a  deranged  fanatic;"  and  with  advancing  allega. 
tions  which  I  "ought  to  know,  and  cannot  but  know,"  to  be  ground, 
less.  In  fact,  he  frequently  imputes  to  me,  in  terms  a  little  indirect 
and  softened,  known  and  deliberate  falsehood.  And  on  one  occasion? 
he  permits  himself  to  address  me  thus :    "  You  could  not  possibly 
"have  adopted  a  mode  of  address  more  calculated  to  sour  the  minds 
"  of  your  readers,  or  better  fitted  to  indulge  the  bitterness  of  your 
"  own  heart.     It  is  direct  and  insidious,  covering  under  the  mask  of 
"  moderation  and  kindness,  all  the  loftiness  of  pride,  and  all  the 
"  rankling  of  passion."  p.  16.     Dr.  Hobart  represents  me  as  wri- 
ting  with  great  "  arrogance"  and  "  bitterness,"  and  even  with 
insidiousness,  a  term  which  no  intelligent  reader  needs  to  be  told, 
implies  dishonesty.     I  regret  that  such  language  has  found  its  way 
into  this  controversy.     I  am  not  able  to  see  that  it  aids  the  argu- 
ment of  those  who  employ  it ;  and  it  certainly  contributes  nothing 
to  the  charity  of  Christian  intercourse.  You  will  not  imagine,  I  am 
sure,  that  this  language  is  capable  of  exciting  in  me  a  feeling  of 
personal  resentment  or  pain.     But  it  is  exceedingly  to  be  lamented, 
that  gentlemen  of  their  station  should  indulge  in  a  style  so  scrupu- 
lously banished  from  all  dignified  and   polished  society;    that  a 
person  so  long  employed  as  one  of  them  has  been,  in  forming  the 
moral  principles  and  character  of  youth,  should  discover  so  little 
success  in  the  discipline  of  his  own  temper  ;  and    that  they  have 
not  all  more  highly  appreciated  the  duty  of  being  examples  to  the 


240  LETTER  1. 

flock.  It  shall  be  my  aim,  in  the  following  pages,  to  avoid  all 
similar  language.  And  if  you  should  ever  find  me  inadvertently 
betrayed  into  it,  be  assured  it  is  contrary  to  my  fixed  resolution  ; 
and  that,  when  discovered,  it  will  be  a  source  of  unfeigned  regret. 
May  we  all  remember,  with  the  celebrated  author  of  the  ecclesias- 
tical polity,  that "  there  will  come  a  time  when  three  words  uttered 
"  with  charity  and  meekness  shall  receive  a  far  more  blessed 
"  reward  than  three  thousand  volumes  written  with  disdainful 
"  sharpness  of  wit !" 

But  these  gentlemen  not  only  employ,  on  their  part,  what  I  must 
consider  as  exceptionable  language ;  they  also  impute  to  me  lan- 
guage scarcely  less  offensive  or  exceptionable  than  their  own.  Dr. 
Bowden  says  that  I  pronounce  episcopacy  an  antichristian 
usurpation.  Vol.  I.  p.  245.  And  Mr.  How  asserts,  that  I  "  brand 
prelacy  as  the  detested  offspring  of  ecclesiastical  fraud  and 
tyranny."  I  can  only  say  that  no  such  expressions  are  to  be 
found  in  my  book ;  and  that  whatever  there  is  in  them  which  bears 
an  opprobrious  or  indelicate  character,  is  to  be  ascribed,  not  to 
me,  but  to  the  invention  of  my  accusers. 

I  shall  not  attempt  to  follow  these  gentlemen  through  all  their 
minute  and  tedious  details.  For  this  drudgery  I  have  neither 
leisure  nor  inclination.  It  would  be  again  to  travel  over  the  whole 
ground  which  I  have  already  endeavoured  to  explore,  and  to 
exhibit  in  a  just  light ;  and  which,  after  carefully  attending  to  all 
that  they  have  said,  still  appears  to  me  to  rest  on  immovable 
foundations.  After  requesting  you  to  peruse  my  former  letters  a 
second  time  with  care,  and  to  compare  them  impartially  with  what 
my  opponents  have  advanced,  the  cause  is  cheerfully  committed  to 
your  decision.  All  that  I  propose,  at  present,  is  to  review  some 
of  the  most  plausible  reasonings  of  these  zealous  and  confident 
polemics ;  to  point  out  a  few  of  their  more  gross  and  palpable  mis- 
takes ;  and  to  show  the  candid  reader  how. far  he  can  rely  on  the 
statements  of  persons  who  discover  so  little  acquaintance  with  more 
than  one  side  of  the  controversy  ;  and  at  the  same  time  allow  them- 
selves to  speak  as  if  they  engrossed  all  knowledge,  and  as  if  wisdoai 
would  die  with  them. 

These  letters,  my  brethren,  as  well  as  the  former  series  are  in- 
tended solely  for  your  use.  They  are  occasioned,  indeed,  by  the 
strictures  of  the  gentlemen  whose  names  are  mentioned  in  the  title 


INTRODUCTORY  REMARKS.  241 

page  ;  but  I  have  not  thought  proper  to  address  those  gentlemen 
directly.  With  them  I  have  no  personal  dispute.  Though  they 
have  intruded  into  our  Church  for  the  purpose  of  attacking  me  in 
the  peaceable  discharge  of  my  pastoral  duties,  I  have  still  no 
disposition  to  do  more  than  to  act  on  the  defensive.  But  to  refute 
their  cavils,  to  repel  their  unfounded  and  injurious  charges,  to  lay 
open  the  weakness  of  their  cause,  and  to  expose  their  want  of 
information  on  this  subject,  is  a  duty  which  I  owe  to  you.  This 
duty  I  will  attempt  to  discharge ;  and  in  the  execution  of  it,  I  hope 
you  will  follow  me  patiently. 


2  H 


242    ) 


LETTER    IL 


COMPARATIVE  STRESS  LAID  ON  ECCLESIASTICAL  ORDER  BY  PRESBYTE- 
RIANS AND  HIGH-CHURCHMEN.— THE  DOCTRINE  OF  THE  JURE-DIVINO 
PRESBYTERIANS  BRIEFLY  STATED. 


CHRISTIAN  BRETHREN, 

Two  of  the  gentlemen  whose  attacks  I  am  called  upon  to  repel, 
accuse  me  of  misrepresenting  the  high-toned  episcopal  doctrine 
which  they  avow,  and  endeavour  to  maintain.  They  impute  to 
me  a  desire  to  excite  prejudices  against  them,  by  insinuating,  that 
they  exclude  all  but  Episcopalians  from  salvation.  Mr.  How,  in 
particular,  brings  forward  and  urges  this  accusation  with  great  zeal. 
I  utterly  deny  the  charge.  I  never  intended  to  convey  such  an 
insinuation  ;  and  am  persuaded  that  my  letters  do  not  contain  a 
single  sentence  which  can  be  fairly  construed  as  expressing  it. 

But  I  have  asserted,  that  such  Episcopalians  as  agree  with  these 
writers,  exclude  us  from  the  covenanted  mercy  of  God,  and  declare 
us  to  be  destitute  of  all  interest  in  the  promises  of  salvation.  I 
have  asserted,  that  they  pronounce  us  to  be  out  of  the  church  of 
Christ,  and  aliens  from  the  covenant  of  grace.  I  have  asserted, 
that,  while  they  express  a  charitable  hope  that  such  of  us  as  depart 
from  the  episcopal  church  from  "  involuntary  ignorance  or  error," 
will  find  mercy  ;  they  uniformly  consider  and  represent  this  mercy 
as  extended  to  Presbyterians,  in  the  same  manner,  and  on  the  same 
principles,  as  to  the  heathen  ;  that  is,  not  in  virtue  of  any  cove- 
nant engagement,  or  explicit  promise)  but  on  the  footing  of 
general,  unpledged  mercy.  I  have  said  this,  and  this  only,  and  all 
this,  they  have  themselves,  in  effect,  avowed,  repeated,  and  gloried 
in,  with  a  zeal  worthy  of  a  better  cause. 


PRESBYTERIANS  NOT  ILLIBERAL.  243 

But  these  gentlemen  insist,  that  however  high  and  offensive 
their  claims  may  be  considered,  we,  on  our  part,  advance  claims  as 
high  and  as  offensive  as  theirs  ;  and,  therefore,fon  our  own  prin- 
ciples, have  no  right  to  complain.  They  urge  this  argument  with 
much  confidence,  and  seem  to  regard  it  as  a  triumphant  answer  to 
the  charge  of  unscriptural  assumption.  Mr.  How  expresses  him- 
self thus  :  "  Episcopalians  lay  no  more  stress  on  external  order 
«  than  does  the  society  to  which  you  belong.  Who  could  have 
"  supposed  it  possible,  after  seeing  you  through  several  pages, 
"  declaiming  against  the  monstrous  pretensions  of  your  opponents, 
"  that  they  carry  external  order  precisely  as  far  as  your  own 
"  confession  of  faith,  and  not  a  tittle  further."  p.  16.  Again  he 
says,  "  You  inveigh  bitterly  against  your  episcopal  neighbours, 
u  for  asserting  the  exclusive  validity  of  episcopal^ordination.  But 
"  you  equally  assert  the  exclusive  validity  of  presbyterial  ordina- 
"  tion  ;  telling  us,  that,  without  such  ordination,  there  can  be  no 
"  ministry  ;  without  a  ministry,  no  church  ;  and  without  a  church, 
"  no  covenanted  title  to  salvation.  In  addition  to  all  this,  you 
"  assert  the  divine  institution  of  presbyterial  government,  in  all  its 
"  parts,  excluding  its  habitual  violators,  cases  of  unavoidable  igno- 
u  ranee  or  involuntary  error  excepted,  from  the  kingdom  of 
"  heaven.  If  the  episcopal  doctrine  is  of  a  nature  nearly  allied  to 
"  the  claim  of  papal  infallibility,  your  doctrine  must  be  the  claim 
"of  papal  infallibility  itself."  p.  117.  Nay,  he  asserts,  that 
Presbyterians  carry  their  ideas  of  the  importance  of  external 
order  much  further  than  Episcopalians,  p.  22,  23.  "  I  proceed  to 
"  observe  that  Presbyterians  go  much  further  than  Episcopalians 
"  in  their  ideas  of  external  order.  Thus,  not  contented  with 
"  making  presbyterial  ordination  essential  to  the  existence  of  the 
"  church,  and  to  all  covenanted  title  to  salvation  they  tell  us  that 
"  presbyterial  government  is,  in  all  its  parts,  sketched  out  in 
"  scripture ;  that  it  is  the  duty  of  all  Christians  to  conform  to  it ; 
"  and  that,  in  refusing  or  neglecting  to  do  so,  they  incur  great 
"  guilt.  The  plan  of  ruling  elders  and  deacons,  with  mere 
"  temporal  functions ;  the  whole  system  of  church  sessions, 
"  presbyterial  assemblies,  synodical  assemblies,  and  general  assem- 
"  blies,  they  say,  is  prescribed  in  the  word  of  God.  In  fact,  it  is 
"  impossible  to  carry  external  order  further  than  these  men  carry 
«  it.  See  the  language  which  they  hold !  Presbyterial  govern- 


244  LETTER  II. 

"  mentj  in  church  sessions,  presbyterial  assemblies,  synodical 
"  assemblies,  and  general  assemblies,  is  established  by  the  apostles, 
"  and  is  the  law  of  God's  house.  All  are  bound  to  conform  to  it. 
"  Habitual  disobedience  to  any  of  the  divine  commands  will  exclude 
"  from  the  kingdom  of  heaven.  Thus  all  but  Presbyterians  are 
"  consigned  to  perdition.  And  what  relief  do  they  give  ?  Why, 
"  simply,  that  there  are  sins  of  ignorance  and  infirmity  which  may 
"  consist  with  a  gracious  state.  So  that  our  opponents  not  only 
"  make  presbyterial  ordination  essential  to  the  existence  of  the 
"  church,  but  they  represent  obedience  to  their  particular  mode  of 
"  ecclesiastical  government  as  a  condition  of  salvation  :  placing 
"  all  who  reject  it  on  the  ground  of  the  general  mercy  which,  it  is 
"  hoped,  God  will  extend  to  persons  labouring  under  unavoidable, 
"  or  involuntary,  error.  And  is  not  this,  sir,  the  exact  ground  on 
"  which  those  who  depart  from  the  episcopal  constitution  of  the 
"  priesthood  are  placed  by  the  very  men  against  whom  you  so 
"  bitterly  inveigh  ?"  This  is  such  a  favourite  topic  of  declama- 
tion with  Mr.  How,  that  he  can  scarcely  get  through  a  single  page, 
without  directly  or  indirectly  recurring  to  it.  His  coadjutors  seem 
to  be  never  better  pleased  than  when  joining  in  the  same  strain. 
And  truly  it  wants  nothing  to  render  it  a  very  plausible  argument, 
but  the  single  circumstance  of  having  some  foundation  in  fact. 
Of  this,  I  am  compelled  to  say,  it  is  totally  destitute. 

To  show  that  Mr.  How,  in  writing  thus,  unjustly  accuses  our 
church,  nothing  more  is  necessary  than  to  transcribe  the  following 
chapters  from  our  Confession  of  Faith,  and  Form  of  Government. 
They  are  given  entire,  that  there  may  be  no  suspicion  of  conceal- 
ment or  mutilation  ;  that  the  several  sections  of  each  chapter  may 
explain  one  another ;  and,  I  will  add,  that  Mr.  How,  if  he  should 
ever  happen  to  look  into  these  pages,  may  have  an  opportunity  of 
reading  them,  which,  after  perusing  such  remarks  as  are  quoted 
above,  I  cannot  suppose  he  has  ever  yet  done. 

CONFESSION  OP  FAITH. CHAP.  XXV.  OF  THE  CHURCH. 

«  I.  The  catholic  or  universal  church,  which  is  invisible,  con- 
sists of  the  whole  number  of  the  elect,  that  have  been,  are,  or  shall 
be  gathered  into  one,  under  Christ  the  head  thereof ;  and  is  the 
spouse,  the  body,  the  fulness  of  him  that  filleth  all  in  all. 


PRESBYTERIANS   NOT  ILLIBERAL.  245 

e<  II.  The  visible  church  which  is  also  catholic  or  universal 
under  the  gospel,  (not  confined  to  one  nation  as  before  under  the 
law,)  consists  of  all  those  throughout  the  world,  that  profess  the 
true  religion,  together  with  their  children  ;  and  is  the  kingdom  of 
the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  the  house  and  family  of  God,  out  of  which 
there  is  no  ordinary  possibility  of  salvation. 

"  III.  Unto  this  catholic  visible  church,  Christ  hath  given  the 
ministry,  oracles,  and  ordinances  of  God,  for  the  gathering  and 
perfecting  of  the  saints,  in  this  life,  to  the  end  of  the  world  :  and 
doth  by  his  own  presence  and  spirit,  according  to  his  promise, 
make  them  effectual  thereunto. 

"  IV.  This  catholic  church  hath  been  sometimes  more,  some- 
times less  visible.  And  particular  churches,  which  are  members 
thereof,  are  more  or  less  pure,  according  as  the  doctrine  of  the 
gospel  is  taught  and  embraced,  ordinances  administered,  and 
public  worship  performed  more  or  less  purely  in  them. 

"  V.  The  purest  churches  under  heaven  are  subject  both  to 
mixture  and  error  :  and  some  have  so  degenerated,  as  to  become 
no  churches  of  Christ,  but  synagogues  of  Satan.  Nevertheless 
there  shall  be  always  a  church  on  earth,  to  worship  God  according 
to  his  will. 

"  VI.  There  is  no  other  head  of  the  church  but  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ.  Nor  can  the  pope  of  Rome,  in  any  sense  be  head  thereof; 
but  is  that  antichrist,  that  man  of  sin,  and  son  of  perdition,  that 
exalteth  himself,  in  the  church,  against  Christ,  and  all  that  is  called 
God." 

FORM  OP  GOVERNMENT. — CHAP.  1.  OP  THE  CHURCH. 

"  I.  Jesus  Christ,  who  is  now  exalted,  far  above  all  principality, 
and  power,  hath  erected,  in  this  world,  a  kingdom,  which  is  his 
church. 

"  II.  The  universal  church  consists  of  all  those  persons,  in  every 
nation,  together  with  their  children,  who  make  profession  of  the 
holy  religion  of  Christ,  and  of  submission  to  his  laws. 

"  III.  As  this  immense  multitude  cannot  meet  together,  in  one 
place,  to  hold  communion,  or  to  worship  God,  it  is  reasonable  and 
warranted  by  scripture  example,  that  they  should  be  divided  into 
many  particular  churches. 


246  LETTER  II. 

"  IV.  A  particular  church  consists  of  a  number  of  professing 
Christians,  with  their  offspring,  voluntarily  associated  together,  for 
divine  worship  and  godly  living,  agreeably  to  the  holy  scriptures; 
and  submitting  to  a  certain  form  of  government." 

FORM  OF  GOVERNMENT. —  CHAP.  II.   OF  THE  OFFICERS  OF  THE 
CHURCH. 

"  I.  Our  blessed  Lord,  at  first,  collected  his  church  out  of  different 
nations,  and  formed  it  into  one  body,  by  the  mission  of  men  endued 
with  miraculous  gifts,  which  have  long  since  ceased. 

"  II.  The  ordinary  and  perpetual  officers,  in  the  church,  are 
bishops  or  pastors;  the  representatives  of  the  people,  usually  styled 
ruling  elders,  and  deacons." 

FORM  OF  GOVERNMENT. —  CHAP.  VII.    OF  CHURCH  GOVERNMENT,  AND 
THE  SEVERAL  KINDS    OF  JUDICATORIES. 

"  I.  It  is  absolutely  necessary  that  the  government  of  the  church 
be  exercised  under  some  certain  and  definite  form  :  and  we  hold  it 
to  be  expedient,  and  agreeable  to  scripture  and  the  practice  of  the 
primitive  Christians,  that  the  church  be  governed  by  congregational, 
presbyterial,  and  synodical  assemblies.  In  full  consistency  with  this 
belief,  we  embrace,  in  the.  spirit  of  charity,  those  Christians  who 
differ  from  us,  in  opinion  or  in  practice,  on  these  subjects. 

"  II.  These  assemblies  ought  not  to  possess  any  civil  jurisdiction 
nor  to  inflict  any  civil  penalties  :  Their  power  is  wholly  moral  or 
spiritual,  and  that  only  ministerial  and  declarative.  They  possess 
the  right  of  requiring  obedience  to  the  laws  of  Christ;  and  of 
excluding  the  disobedient  and  disorderly,  from  the  privileges  of  the 
church.  To  give  efficiency,  however,  to  this  necessary  and  scrip- 
tural authority,  they  possess  the  powers  requisite  for  obtaining 
evidence  and  inflicting  censure  5  they  can  call  before  them  any 
offender  against  the  order  and  government  of  the  church :  They 
can  require  members,  of  their  own  society,  to  appear  and  give  tes- 
timony on  the  cause;  but  the  highest  punishment  to  which  their 
authority  extends  is  to  exclude  the  contumacious  and  impenitent 
from  the  congregation  of  believers." 

In  these  chapters,  every  line  is  marked  with  wisdom,  moderation, 
and  charity.  They  are  so  far  from  asserting  that  no  church  is  enti- 


PRESBYTERIANS  NOT  ILLIBERAL.  247 

tied  to  the  name  of  a  church  of  Christ,  but  our  own,  that  the  con- 
trary is  clearly  and  unequivocally  acknowledged.  They  are  so 
far  from  maintaining,  that  there  is  no  salvation  out  of  the  pale  of 
our  church,  that  they  could  scarcely  have  found  words  more  strong- 
ly to  express  an  opposite  opinion,  without  running  into  unlimited 
latitudinarianism.  They  make  the  visible  church  to  consist  of  at 
those  throughout  the  world,  who  profess  the  true  religion,  together 
with  their  children  ;  and,  lest  the  phrase,  the  true  religion,  might 
be  construed  to  mean  an  exact  conformity  with  our  own  standards, 
they  declare  that  they  consider  as  included  in  the  visible  catholic 
church,  many  churches  less  pure  than  their  own,  and  that  they 
freely  "embrace  in  the  spirit  of  charity,  those  Christians  who  differ 
u  from  them,  in  opinion,  or  in  practice,  on  these  subjects."  They 
go  on  to  state,  that  this  visible  church  is  the  kingdom  of  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ,  the  house  and  family  of  God,  out  of  which  there  is  no 
ordinary  possibility  of  salvation  ;  thus  making  express  provision 
for  the,  exercise  of  mercy  in  ways  extraordinary,  and  therefore 
unknown  to  us.  Could  any  thing  be  more  guarded  or  remote  from 
bigotry  ?  These  gentlemen,  however,  insist,  that  in  the  chapter  of 
the  Confession  of  Faith,  (Chap.  27-)  which  treats  of  the  sacra- 
ments, it  is  formally  declared,  that  "  neither  of  the  sacraments  may 
"  be  dispensed  by  any  other  than  a  minister  of  the  word  lawfully 
"  ordained."  But  what  is  this  to  the  purpose  ?  Who  is  a  "  minis- 
"  ter  of  the  word  lawfully  ordained  ?7'  If  any  preceding  or  subse- 
quent passage  in  our  public  standards,  had  asserted,  or  even  intimat- 
ed, that  no  minister  is  lawfully  ordained,  but  one  who  has  been  set 
apart  exactly  in  our  mode,  there  would  be  some  pretext  for  this 
cavil.  But  no  such  assertion  or  intimation,  nor  any  thing  that 
resembles  either,  is  contained  in  the  whole  book.  It  prescribes  the 
course  of  study,  and  the  kind  of  trials  which  candidates  for  the 
ministry,  in  our  church,  shall  be  required  to  pass  through,  and  it 
also  directs  the  mode  of  their  ordination :  but  it  pronounces  no 
sentence  of  invalidity  on  other  modes  of  conducting  these  important 
concerns  ;  nor  does  it  give  a  hint,  from  which,  by  fair  reasoning, 
such  a  sentence  can  be  deduced. 

But  this  is  not  all.  While  the  language  of  our  confession  of 
faith  and  articles  of  government,  is  catholic  and  charitable  in  a 
very  remarkable  degree,  their  history  illustrates  and  confirms  their 
language.  They  were  drawn  up  by  the  Westminister  Assembly 


248  LETTER  II. 

of  Divines j  than  which  a  more  venerable  body  of  ministers  never 
convened.  This  illustrious  ecclesiastical  council  consisted  of  more 
than  a  hundred  divines,  besides  the  lay  members.  And  it  is 
remarkable,  that  all  of  these  divines,  excepting  about  seven  or  eight , 
had  received  episcopal  ordination  and  no  other.  Is  it  credible  that 
these  men,  assembled  as  ministers,  judicially  deliberating  and 
acting  as  ministers,  could  have  intended  to  pronounce  their  own 
ordination  null  and  void  ?  Or  that  they  would  frame  articles  de- 
claring all  such  ordinations  in  future  invalid  ?  No;  such  a  sentence 
was  never  pronounced  ;  and  I  may  confidently  assert,  was  never 
thought  of  by  a  member  of  that  assembly.  While  they  declared 
the  Presbyterian  form  of  church  government  to  be  the  apostolic 
and  primitive  plan ;  they  explicitly  acknowledged  the  validity  of 
episcopal  orders  and  ministrations.  And  the  same  has  been  the 
language  and  the  conduct  of  every  Presbyterian  church  that  ever 
existed  on  earth. 

Ministers  episcopally  ordained  have  frequently  applied  to  be 
received  into  Christian  and  ministerial  communion  with  Presby- 
terian churches,  both  in  Europe  and  America.  But  did  Mr.  How 
ever  hear  of  one  of  them  being  re-ordained?  I  will  venture  to  say 
he  never  did.  Ministers  have  offered  themselves  to  the  church  to 
which  I  have  the  honour  to  belong,  not  only  from  the  episcopal, 
but  also  from  the  Methodist  and  the  Baptist  churches.  But  was 
a  re-ordination  ever  attempted,  in  any  one  of  these  cases  ?  I  can 
confidently  affirm  that  no  such  case  ever  occurred  ;  certainly 
none  ever  came  to  my  knowledge.  In  every  instance  in  which  it 
was  ascertained  that  the  minister  applying  to  be  received,  had  been 
regularly  set  apart  to  the  sacred  office,  by  the  imposition  of  the 
hands  of  men  authorized  to  preach  and  administer  sacraments  in 
their  own  church,  he  was  freely  received,  and  his  ordination  sus- 
tained as  valid.  Does  this  look  like  pronouncing  our  precise  form 
of  church  order  indispensable  to  a  regular  ministry,  to  valid  ordi- 
nances, or  to  final  salvation  ?  Had  we  been  accused  of  being 
zealous  advocates  for  the  doctrine  of  purgatory  or  transubstantia- 
tion,  the  charge  would  have  been  equally  true,  and  equally 
creditable  to  the  candour  of  its  author. 

But  perhaps  Mr.  How  will  plead,  that,  although  our  church,  in 
the  language  of  her  public  standards,  is,  on  the  whole,  liberal  and 
conciliatory ;  yet  that  other  branches  of  the  Presbyterian  body, 


DOCTRINE  OF  PRESBYTERIANS.  349 

particularly  those  with  which  Dr.  Ma^on,  and  Mr.  M'Leod  are 
connected,  go  the  whole  length  of  asserting  the  exclusive  validity 
of  the  Presbyterian  ministry  and  ordinances.  Such  is  one  of  the 
arts  to  which  this  gentleman  resorts,  when  he  cannot  find  materials 
enough  in  our  confession  of  faith,  to  satisfy  his  insatiable  appetite 
for  proscription  and  excommunication.  But  neither  will  this  sub- 
terfuge avail  him.  He  accuses  others  as  unjustly  as  he  accuses  us. 
It  is  not  true  that  the  most  high-toned  Presbyterians  on  earth,  go 
any  thing  like  the  length,  in  maintaining  the  necessity  of  our 
particular  mode  of  constituting  the  Christian  ministry,  that  this 
gentleman  and  his  friends  do  in  asserting  the  exclusive  validity  of 
episcopal  ordination.  And,  although  both  Dr.  Mason  and  Mr. 
M'Leodmay  hold  some  opinions  concerning  the  Christian  church 
in  which  I  do  not  entirely  concur  with  them ;  yet  there  cannot  be 
greater  injustice  than  to  speak  of  them  and  their  writings  in  the 
manner  in  which  Mr.  How  has  permitted  himself  to  do.  To  what 
this  rnistatement  of  their  opinions  is  to  be  ascribed,  it  becomes 
not  me  to  say.  I  dare  not  impeach  the  integrity  of  Mr.  How.  For 
acquitting  his  honesty  at  the  expense  of  his  understanding,  he 
would  not  thank  me  :  And  to  suppose  that  he  has  allowed  himself 
to  speak  with  so  much  poshiveness  of  their  tenets,  without  any 
acquaintance  with  them,  would  be  as  offensive  as  either. 

But  are  there  not  some  Presbyterians  who  hold  that  their  form 
of  church  government  was  the  apostolic  and  primitive  form? 
Undoubtedly,  many.  And  are  there  not  some  also,  who  go  fur- 
ther, and  insist  that  this  form  is  binding  on  the  church,  under  all 
circumstances  and  states  of  society,  and,  of  course,  ought  to  be 
adopted  in  all  ages  ?  There  are  certainly  some  .who  go  even  this 
length.  Well !  my  opponents  will  reply,  is  not  this  holding  to 
the  divine  right  of  Presbyterian  government?  It  is.  And  is  it 
not,  of  consequence,  going  the  whole  length  with  us,  and  denying 
that  there  can  be  any  true  church,  or  valid  ordinances  without  it  ? 
Certainly  not.  The  conclusion  has  no  more  connexion  with  the 
premises,  than  with  the  most  remote  object  in  creation. 

As  both  Dr.  Bowden  and  Mr.  How  have  evidently  yet  to  learn 
the  sentiments  of  the  jure  divino  Presbyterians,  and  as,  for  want 
of  information  on  this  point,  they  are  groping  in  the  dark,  when- 
ever they  approach  it ;  I  will  endeavour  to  enlighten  this  part  of 
their  path,  and,  if  possible,  prevent,  in  future,  those  perpetual 
2  I 


250  LETTER  II. 

wanderings,  which  are  really  much  more  calculated  to  excite  the 
ridicule,  or  the  commiseration,  than  the  resentment  of  their 
Presbyterian  readers. 

The  advocates,  then,  for  the  divine  right  of  presbytery,  (I  now 
speak  of  the  most  rigid  class  of  them,)  believe  that,  in  the  apostolic 
church  every  regularly  organized  congregation  of  Christians  was 
furnished  with  three  classes  of  church  officers,  with  a  bishop,  (or 
pastor,)  ruling  elders,  and  deacons  ;  that  the  bench  of  elders,  with 
the  bishop  as  their  standing  moderator  or  president,  constituted  the 
spiritual  court,  for  directing  all  affairs  purely  ecclesiastical  in  the 
congregation  ;  that  the  bishops  of  a  number  of  neighbouring 
congregations,  were  in  the  habit  o*f  statedly  meeting  together,  not 
only  to  cherish  a  spirit  of  union  and  fraternal  affection,  but  also  to 
deliberate  on  matters  of  more  general  concern,  than  those  of  a 
particular  church  ;  that  in  these  larger  assemblies  or  presbyteries, 
(or  by  whatever  name  they  were  called,)  a  delegation  from  the 
eldership  of  each  church  attended  with  their  bishop  ;  and  that, 
either  statedly  or  occasionally,  (it  matters  not  which,  as  to  the 
principle,)  the  bishops  and  elders  of  much  larger  districts,  convened 
under  the  title  of  synods  or  councils,  for  the  purpose  of  discussing 
and  deciding  great  questions,  and  of  making  general  arrangements. 
This,  they  suppose,  was  the  form  of  government  which  the  apostles, 
acting  under  the  inspiration  of  God,  established  in  the  primitive 
church.  They  believe,  moreover,  that  as  this  form  of  ecclesiastical 
polity  was  adopted  by  inspired  men,  it  is  the  best  form;  that  it 
was  intended  to  be  perpetual  ;  that  it  is. the  duty  of  churches,  in 
all  ages,  and  in  all  states  of  society,  to  adopt  it ;  and  that  in  pro- 
portion as  any  deviate  from  it,  they  deviate  from  the  simplicity 
and  purity  of  the  apostolic  age,  and  contravene  the  will  of  God. 

But,  while  this  class  of  Presbyterians  zealously  maintain  the 
principles  which  have  been  stated,  they,  at  the  same  time,  explicit- 
ly grant,  that  there  may  be  deviations  from  this  apostolic  form  of 
government,  without  destroying,  or,  in  any  essential  degree, 
impairing,  the  character  of  a  Christian  church.  They  suppose 
that  imperfection  attends  every  thing  human.  That  although  every 
church,  as  well  as  every  man,  is  required  to  be  in  all  respects 
perfectly  conformed  to  the  divine  will ;  yet  that  neither  any  church, 
nor  any  man  is,  in  fact,  thus  perfect.  They  suppose  that, 
among  individual  professors  of  religion,  there  may  be  all  manner  of 


DOCTRINE  OF  PRESBYTERIANS.  251 

variety  as  to  the  degrees  of  exemplariness  which  they  manifest ;  and 
yet  that  they  may  all  be  entitled,  in  the  judgment  of  charity,  to  be 
considered  as  visible  Christians  ;  and  further,  thaf  cases  may  arise, 
in  which  it  would  be  difficult  to  decide  whether  a  mans  deviations 
had  proceeded  so  far,  as  that  he  ought,  on  the  whole,  to  be  excluded 
from  this  class  or  not.  In  like  manner,  the  Presbyterians  of  whom 
we  are  speaking,  admit  that  there  are  churches  which  differ  con- 
siderably as  to  the  degrees  of  purity  which  they  have  preserved, 
but  which,  notwithstanding,  are  all  entitled  to  the  character  of 
visible  churches  of  Christ.  They  suppose,  indeed,  that  all  devia- 
tions from  primitive  simplicity,  whether  in  doctrine,  in  worship,  or 
in  government,  are  blamable  and  ought  to  be  corrected  ;  but  still, 
that  such  may  exist,  in  a  certain  degree,  without  excluding  those 
who  are  guilty  of  them  from  the  class  of  churches.  And  in  what 
actual  cases  these  deviations  have  become  so  numerous  and  import- 
ant as  to  render  them  no  longer  churches  of  Christ,  but  Syna- 
gogues of  Satan,  they  have  seldom  undertaken  to  pronounce. 

The  most  rigid  Presbyterians  have,  at  different  times,  both  as 
individuals  and  judicatories;  both  by  their  writings,  and  their  de- 
cisions, explicitly  acknowledged  different  denominations  of  Chris- 
tians to  be  true  churches  of  Christ.  They  have  acknowledged  our 
Congregational  brethren  in  New  England ;  the  regular  Indepen- 
dents in  various  parts  of  Great  Britain;  the  Episcopalians  in 
England  and  America  ;  the  Lutherans  in  Germany  and  the  United 
States;  and  the  Methodist  and  Baptist  denominations,  as  all 
churches  of  Christ.  They  consider  all  these,  indeed,  as  more  or 
less  corrupt;  and  have,  accordingly,  at  different  times,  and  without 
reserve,  written,  preached,  aud  printed  their  testimony  against 
those  corruptions;  but  still  they  have  never  said  of  any  of  them, 
that  they  had  no  church,  no  ministry,  no  valid  ordinances,  but 
acknowledged  the  contrary  without  hesitation  or  scruple. 

In  short,  the  high-toned  Presbyterians,  of  whom  we  are  speaking 
do  not  carry  the  divine  right  of  church  government  further  than 
they  carry  the  divine  right  of  doctrine  and  worship  in  the  church. 
Nay,  it  may  be  asserted,  that,  without  a  single  exception,  they  have 
always  laid  more  stress  on  the  two  latter  than  on  theirs*,  as  en- 
tering more  immediately  than  that  into  the  vital  interests  and  cha- 
racter of  the  church.  Now,  it  is  well  known,  that  this  class  of 
Presbyterians,  as  well  as  all  others,  freely  admit  jhat  there  may  be 


252  LETTER  II. 

departures  from  absolute  purity,  both  in  doctrine  and  worship, 
without  unchurching  those  who  admit  them.  They  believe,  for 
instance,  that  Arminianism  is  a  doctrinal  corruption  ;  but  yet  they 
would  shudder  to  pronounce  that  those  churches  which  receive  it, 
have  no  valid  ministry  or  ordinances,  or  to  deny  that  any  of  their 
members  may  be  saved.  They  are  pursuaded,  that  in  the  primi- 
tive church  there  were  no  forms  of  prayer  used  in  public  worship; 
and  that  the  introduction  of  them  is  unwarranted  and  inexpedient; 
yet  I  never  heard  of  any  one  who  considered  this  as  so  essential 
an  innovation,  as  either  to  doubt  the  piety  of  those  who  used  forms, 
or  even  to  pronounce  it  absolutely  unlawful  to  unite  in  worship 
conducted  by  a  liturgy.  They  know  that  kneeling  at  the  Lord's 
supper,  and  the  doctrine  of  transubstantitation  came  into  the 
church  together,  and  have  no  doubt  that  together  they  ought  to 
have  been  discarded ;  yet  they  do  not  imagine,  that  this  mode  of 
receiving  is  inconsistent  with  pious  and  acceptable  communicating; 
much  less  that  it  vitiates  the  sacrament ;  and  least  of  all,  that  it  in- 
fers a  belief  in  the  grand  popish  error  with  which  it  was  originally 
connected.  I  have  known  Episcopalians  to  receive  the  sacred 
bread  and  wine,  kneeling,  from  the  hands  of  a  Presbyterian  mi- 
nister, when  all  the  rest  of  the  communicants  were  sitting  ;  and 
have  no  reason  to  suppose  that  any  other  Presbyterian  minister 
would  have  scrupled  to  comply  with  a  similar  application. 

It  is  to  no  purpose  to  say,  "  that  if  these  be  the  opinions  of 
jure  divino  Presbyterians,  they  are  inconsistent  with  themselves ;  for 
that  a  belief  that  Presbyterianism  was  the  apostolic  form  of  church 
government,  necessarily  carries  with  it,  on  every  principle  of  sober 
reasoning,  a  belief  that  there  can  be  no  church,  no  ministry  with- 
out it."  This  conclusion  is  as  illegitimate  in  reasoning,  as  it  is 
false  in  fact.  The  Presbyterians  of  whom  we  are  speaking,  utterly 
disavow  this  doctrine  which  is,  by  inference,  imputed  to  them ; 
and  declare,  that,  as  it  is  not  deducible  from  their  principles,  so  it 
makes  no  part  of  their  creed. 

The  warmest  advocates  of  the  divine  right  of  prelacy  admit 
that  a  church  may  depart  in  many  respects,  from  the  primitive 
model,  without  forfeiting  the  title  of  a  church  of  Christ  ?  They 
consider  the  church  of  Rome  as  a  true  church  of  Christ,  though  a 
degenerate  and  corrupt  one.  In  one  of  the  Homilies  of  the 
church  of  England,  drawn  up  by  archbishop  Cranmer,  and  the 


DOCTRINE  OF  PRESBYTERIANS.  253 

other  reformers,  it  is  expressly  declared,  that  that  church  is  not 
only  "  idolatrous  and  unchristian ;  not  only  an  harlot,  as  the 
"  scripture  calleth  her,  but  also  afoul,  filthy,  old  withered  harlot  ; 
"  the  foulest  and  filthiest  harlot,  that  ever  was  seen."*  I  do  not 
contend  for  the  decency  of  these  epithets.  That  is  no  concern  of 
mine.  I  state  the  real  language  of  the  church  of  England,  as 
deliberately  expressed  in  her  standards.  And  yet,  while  high" 
churchmen  solemnly  declare  their  belief  in  the  doctrine  of  these 
Homilies,  they  acknowledge  the  church  of  Rome  to  be  a  church  of 
Christ;  trace  their  line  of  succession  through  her;  and  uniformly 
acknowledge  her  ministry  and  ordinances  to  be  valid.  In  fact,  if 
is  on  the  principle  that  it  is  lawful  to  depart  from  the  exact  pattern 
of  the  primitive  church,  with  respect  to  rites,  ceremonies,  and 
discipline,  that  .the  church  of  England  vindicates  many  things  in 
her  own  system,  which  she  acknowledges  were  neither  enjoined 
nor  practised  in  the  days  of  the  apostles.  Nay,  many  of  her  sons, 
and  especially  those  who  advocate  the  doctrine  of  my  opponents,  do 
not  scruple  to  affirm,  that  the  whole  system  of  ecclesiastical  govern- 
ment and  discipline  is  mutable,f  and  may  be  lawfully  modified 
according  to  human  wisdom,  excepting  the  single  part,  so  dearly 
beloved,  which  respects  the  three  orders  of  clergy.  Every  thing 
else,  in  the  external  organization,  they  suppose  may  be  altered,  with- 
out affecting  the  essence  of  the  church  ;  but  to  touch  this  part  of  the 
body,  they  consider  as  the  invasion  of  its  vital  organ. 

Thus  it  appears,  that  the  highest-tonedjwre  divino  Presbyterians 
do  not  lay  any  thing  like  the  stress  on  their  form  of  church  govern- 
ment, that  Dr.  Bowden,  Mr.  How,  and  other  jure  divino  prelatists 
do  on  the  point  of  Episcopacy ;  that  the  charge  brought  against 
them  that  they  unchurch  all  who  reject  the  Presbyterian  govern- 
ment, is  perfectly  unfounded;  not  dcducible  fronv  any  of  their 
principles, 'and  totally  disavowed  by  them;  that  their  public 
standards,  their  judicial  decisions,  and  thehvmost  esteemed  writers, 
all  with  one  voice,  acknowledge  that  there  are  true  churches,  a 
regular  ministry,  and  valid  ordinances,  where  Presbyterianism  is 
wanting;  and,  of  course,  that  the  allegations  of  Dr.  Bowden,  and 

*  Homily  against  peril  of  idolatry.     Part  III.  page  216.     Edit.  Oxford, 
1802. 
f  See  Hooker's  Ecclesiastical  Polity,  passim. 


254  LETTER  II. 

Mr.  How,  are  not  only  unsupported  by  evidence,  but  brought  for- 
ward directly  in  the  face  of  all  legitimate  evidence.  When  these 
gentlemen,  or  either  of  them,  shall  produce  a  single  volume  or 
document,  sanctioned  by  any  Presbyterian  church,  or  from  the 
pen  of  any  esteemed  Presbyterian  divine,  which  contradicts  my 
statement,  I  shall  then,  and  not  till  then,  acquit  them  of  calumninat- 
ing  our  venerable  church. 

But  these  gentlemen  will,  perhaps,  ask,  "  Do  we  not  find  in  the 
writings  of  many  Presbyterian  divines,  severe  epithets,  expressive 
of  strong  disapprobation,  applied  to  the  episcopal  hierarchy  ?  Have 
we  not  actually  pointed  out  some  instances  of  this  kind?"  Granted. 
And  what  then  ?  May  I  not  see  an  egregious  fault  in  an  acquaint- 
ance, arid  reprove  him  sharply  for  it,  without  deeming  it  so  great 
as  to  expunge  his  name  from  the  list  of  my  friends,  or  to  pronounce 
him  a  bad  man  ?  May  we  not  consider  and  oppose  as  an  error,  that 
which  we  do  not  believe,  at  the  same  time,  will  destroy  the  charac- 
ter of  a  church  ?  I  am  sure  that  no  offensive  language  directed 
against  Episcopalians,  is  to  be  found  in  the  Confession  of  Faith  of 
our  church,  and  very  seldom  in  our  best  writers.  But  if  it  were  other- 
wise, where  shall  we  find  language,  to  be  compared  on  the  score 
either  of  indelicacy  or  severity,  with  that  which  the  church  of 
England  has  formally  directed  against  the  church  of  Rome,*  while 
at  the  same  time  she  acknowledged,  and  does  still  acknowledge,  her 
ministry  and  ordinances  to  be  valid. 

Dr.  Bowden  and  Mr.  How  make  much  use  of  the  society  of 
Quakers  in  this  controversy.  They  ask  me,  whether,  amidst  all 
rny  professions  of  liberality,  I  can  consistently  with  our  Confession 
of  Faith,  acknowledge  the  Quakers  as  a  visible  church  of  Christ  ? 
And  if  not,  how  I  can  find  fault  with  Episcopalians  for  not  acknow- 
ledging us  ?  My  only  reply  to  all  their  declamation  on  this  subject 
shall  be  short.  It  is  not  a  practical  question.  The  society  of 
Quakers  do  not  profess  to  have  an  ordained  ministry,  at  all,  in  the 
sense  of  most  other  denominations  of  Protestants.  The  question, 
then,  whether  we  can  acknowledge  their  ordinations,  ministry,  and 
sacraments  to  be  valid,  can  never  come  before  us;  for  none  of 
these  things  make  any  part  of  their  ecclesiastical  system ;  and,  of 
course, 8can  never  be  offered  to  us  to  receive  our  sanction.  1  consider, 
therefore,  all  that  my  opponents  have  said  on  this  subject,  as  a 

*  Seepage  252. 


DOCTRINE  OF  PRESBYTERIANS.  255 

vain  effort  to  obscure  the  merits  of  the  real  question,  and  as  incon- 
clusive as  it  is  irrelevant  to  the  controversy. 

Dr.  Bowden  and  Mr.  How  speak  much  of  "  covenanted"  and 
"  uncovenanted"  mercy.  The  latter  candidly  and  repeatedly  avows 
his  belief,  that  all  who  are  in  communion  with  a  church  organized 
in  the  episcopal  form,  are  in  covenant  with  God ;  and  that  all 
others,  without  exception,  are  aliens  from  the  commonwealth  of 
Israel,  strangers  to  the  covenant  of  promise,  and  have  no  hope 
but  in  the  general  uncovenanted  mercy  of  God.  We  certainly  can 
have  no  objection  to  his  informing  us  what  is  Ids  creed,  and  we 
thank  him  for  being  so  unreservedly  communicative  on  the  subject. 
But  he  goes  further.  He  undertakes  to  say  that  Presbyterians,  on 
their  part,  hold  a  similar  opinion ;  that  they  exclude  from  the 
Christian  covenant  all  but  Presbyterians  ;  nay,  that  they  pronounce 
all  who  do  not  embrace  "  the  rigid  peculiarities  of  Calvinism"  to 
be  in  an  unregenerate  state,  and  coolly  consign  them  to  "  uncove- 
nanted mercy."  Had  Mr.  How  asserted  that  all  Presbyterians  are 
zealous  advocates  of  the  divine  mission  of  Mahomet,  it  would  have 
been,  rather  more  ridiculous  indeed,  but  not  a  whit  more  remote 
from  fact  than  this  statement.  His  position  is  not  only  not  true, 
but  there  is  not  a  shadow  of  foundation  for  it ;  nor  can  he  produce 
a  single  Presbyterian  writer,  of  respectable  character,  who  says  any 
thing  that  can  be  reasonably  construed  as  bearing  the  least  resem- 
blance to  this  doctrine.* 

Presbyterians,  (I  speak  now  of  all  that  I  have  ever  known  or 
heard  of,  particularly  the  most  rigid  among  them,)  Presbyterians, 
I  say,  believe,  that  according  to  the  tenor  of  the  covenant  of  grace, 
salvation  '^promised,  that  is,  secured  by  covenant  engagement,  to 
all  who  sincerely  repent  of  sin,  and  unfeignedly  believe  in  the  Lord 
Jesus  Christ.  Of  course  they  consider  all  who^bear  this  character, 
to  whatever  external  church  they  may  belong,  or  even  if  they  bear 
no  relation  to  any  visible  church,  as  in  covenant  with  God,  as 

*  It  is  to  be  hoped  that  Presbyterians  understand  the  gospel  too  well 
to  speak  of  "  uncovenanted  mercy"  at  all.  The  phrase  itself  is  unscrip- 
tural;  and  if  it  convey  any  meaning1,  it  is  an  erroneous  one.  Fallen  crea- 
tures know  of  no  mercy  but  that  which  is  promised  or  secured  by  the 
covenant  of  grace,  in  Christ  Jesus  our  Lord.  If  Dr.  Bowden  and  Mr.  How 
have  discovered  any  other  kind  or  channel  of  divine  mercy,  I  can  only  say, 
they  have  not  found  it  in  the  Bible. 


256  LETTER  II. 

inerested  in  his  great  and  precious  promises,  and  as  in  the  sure 
and  certain  road  to  his  heavenly  kingdom.  They  know,  indeed, 
and  teach,  that  it  is  the  duty  of  all  who  believe  in  Christ,  to  connect 
themselves  with  his  visible  church  ;  they  teach  also,  that  receiving 
the  seals  of  God's  covenant,  and  attending  on  all  the  ordinances  of 
his  house,  are  solemnly  enjoined,  and  productive  of  essential  advan- 
tages. Nay,  they  go  so  far  as  to  pronounce  that  he  who  neglects 
these  ordinances,  when  he  is  favoured  with  an  opportunity  of 
attending  on  them,  gives,  in  ordinary  cases,  too  much  reason  to 
fear,  whatever  may  be  his  declarations  to  the  contrary,  that  he  has 
no  real  love  to  Christ.  But  still  they  do  not,  and  without  contra- 
dicting the  Scriptures,  they  cannot,  teach  that  the  means  of  religion 
constitute  its  essence,  or  that  the  seals  of  the  covenant,  form  the 
covenant  itself.  The  seal  on  a  bond,  is  not  itself  the  contract,  but 
only  the  evidence  of  it.  In  like  manner,  the  seals  of  the  Christian 
covenant,  are  not  in  themselves  the  promise  or  the  engagement 
either  on  the  pajt  of  God  or  man  ;  but  are  the  constituted  means  of 
recognizing  or  ratifying  a  covenant  transaction,  supposed  to  have 
previously  taken  place  in  secret,  when  the  person  receiving  the  seal, 
embraced  the  gospel,  and  cordially  devoted  himself  to  Christ  on 
the  terms  of  the  covenant. 

I  repeat  itj  then,  the  doctrine  of  all  Calvinistic  Presbyterians  is, 
that  every  one  who  loves  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  in  sincerity,  and 
maintains  a  holy  life,  whatever  may  be  the  mistakes  into  which  he 
may  fall,  or  the  prejudices  against  particular  parts  of  evangelical 
truth  and  order  which  he  may  entertain  5  whatever  the  disadvan- 
tages under  which  he  may  labour,  with  respect  to  his  ecclesiastical 
connexions  ;  or  even  if  he  were  placed  in  circumstances  in  which 
he  never  saw  a  place  of  public  worship,  a  minister  of  the  gospel,  or 
a  church  officer  of  any  kind,  in  his  life  ;  that  every  such  person  is 
in  covenant  with  God,  and  has  that  title  to  salvation  which  is  given 
by  the  promise  of  a  faithful  God  to  every  sincere  believer.  How 
much  error,  how  much  infirmity,  how  much  deviation  from  the  exter- 
nal order  which  God  hath  appointed  in  his  house,  is  consistent  with 
true  faith,  we  know  not,  nor  has  any  Presbyterian,  with  whose  person 
or  writings  I  am  acquainted,  ever  attempted  to  'decide.  But  that 
every  one  who  has  sincere  faith  in  Christ,  is  in  covenant  with  God, 
they,  with  one  voice,  proclaim  and  teach. 

This  simple  statement  also  refutes  another  assertion,  which  Mr. 


DOCTRINE  OP  PRESBYTERIANS.  257 

How  permits  himself,  without  the  smallest  foundation,  to  make  and 
repeat.  The  assertion  to  which  I  allude,  is  conveyed  in  the  fol- 
lowing terms.  "  All  of  you  declare  baptism  and  the  supper  to  be 
"  general  conditions  of  salvation  ;  representing  them  as  seals  of 
"  the  covenant  of  grace,  without  which,  it  is  impossible  to  have 
"  any  ordinary  or  regular  claim  to  the  blessings  of  that  covenant. 
"  Such  as  habitually  neglect  these  ordinances,  saving  a  little  allow. 
"  ance  for  error,  you  exclude  from  the  kingdom  of  heaven. — Intole. 
"  rant  and  bigoted  wretches  !  To  give  so  much  importance  to  the 
'*  ceremony  of  sprinkling  water,  or  of  receiving  bread  and  wine! 
"  And  to  tell  us  too,  that  it  is  impossible  to  have  these  ordinances, 
"  except  at  the  hands  of  ministers  presbyterially  ordained.  How 
"  much  better  is  all'this  than  the  tale  of  papal  infallibility !  How 
"  far  are  you  removed  from  catholic  absurdity  and  arrogance!" 
Letters,  p.  117-  Mr.  How  asserts  that  all  Presbyterians  believe 
and  speak  thus.  But  can  he  find  owe  that  does  ?  I  know  of  none  ; 
and  am  confident  there  is  none.  Our  Confession  of  Faith  says  no 
such  thing.  On  the  contrary,  it  expressly  declares,  that  persons 
to  whom  these  ordinances  are  never  administered,  may  be  saved  ; 
and  that  those  who  do  receive  them  may  perish.  "  But/'  says  Mr. 
How,  "  your  Confession  of  Faith  represents  baptism  as  the  only 
"  mode  of  admission  into  the  visible  church  ;  it  declares  that  out  of 
"  the  visible  church,  there  is  no  ordinary  possibility  of  salvation  ; 
"  and  it  maintains  that  baptism  ought  not  to  be  administered  by 
"  any  but  a  minister  of  the  gospel  lawfully  ordained.  Does  it  not 
"  follow  then,  that  without  baptism,  there  is  *  no  ordinary  possi- 
"  bility  of  salvation  ?"  No^  it  does  not  follow.  His  premises  are 
incorrect,  and  his  conclusion  is  equally  so.  With  all  his  confidence, 
he  blunders  at  every  step.  Every  one  who  has  read  our  Confes- 
sion of  Faith,  knows  its  doctrine  on  this  subject  to  be,  that  all  who 
profess  the  true  religion,  are  members  of  the  visible  church ;  that 
the  children  of  such  persons,  by  virtue  of  their  birth,  and  of  course 
anterior  to  baptism,  are  also  members  of  the  church ;  and  that 
baptism  is  only  the  appointed  seal,  or  solemn  recognition,  and 
ratification  of  their  membership.  This  is  perfectly  plain ;  and  it 
cuts  up  by  the  roots  every  pretence  for  the  statement  which  Mr. 
How  has  made. 

With  respect  to  Mr.  How's  direct  and  repeated  assertion,  that 
Calvinistic  Presbyterians  make  a  belief  in  the  doctrine  of"  election," 
2  K 


258  LETTER  II. 

and  the  other,  "  rigid  peculiarities  of  Calvinism,'*  essential  to  our 
being  in  covenant  with  God,  and  that  they  represent  all  who  do' 
not  receive  these  "  peculiarities"  as  given  up  to  uncovenanted 
mercy,  it  is  difficult  to  answer  it  as  it  deserves,  without  speaking  of 
its  author  in  a  manner  in  which  I  cannot  permit  myself  to  speak  of 
a  Christian  minister.  It  is  no  arrogance  to  say  that  I  am  probably 
ns  familiar  with  the  writings  of  Calvinistic  divines  as  Mr.  How  :  and 
I  can  solemnly  declare,  that  to  the  best  of  my  recollection,  I  never 
met  with  one  who  expressed  such  a  sentiment,  or  who  gave  the 
least  reason  to  suppose  that  he  held  it :  nor  do  I  believe  that  Mr. 
How  ever  saw  or  heard  of  one.  On  the  contrary,  I  have  scarcely 
ever  opened  a  volume  by  the  most  zealous  Caluinist,  in  which  a 
question  of  this  kind  was  discussed,  without  finding  an  acknow- 
ledgment, either  express  or  implied,  of  the  sincere  piety,  and  of 
course  the  covenant  title  to  heaven,  of  many  who  were  far  from 
being  Calvinists.  But  you  will  find,  my  brethren,  before  you 
have  completed  the  perusal  of  these  sheets,  some  apology  for  Mr. 
How.  You  will  clearly  perceive  that  he  is  not  acquainted  with 
the  writings  of  Calvin,  and  that  he  does  not  understand  the 
system  of  doctrines  which  is  distinguished  by  the  name  of  that  great 
reformer. 

Mr.  How,  in  his  zeal  to  prove  that  Presbyterians  are  even  more 
uncharitable  than  such  highchurch-men  as  himself  and  others, 
endeavours  to  throw  great  odium  on  a  clause  in  the  10th  chapter 
of  our  Confession  of  Faith,  which  is  in  the  following  words  :*'  Much 
"  less  can  men,  not  professing  the  Christian  religion,  be  saved,  in 
"  any  other  way  whatsoever,  be  they  never  so  diligent  to  frame 
"  their  lives  according  to  the  light  of  nature,  and  the  law  of  that 
"  religion  which  they  do  profess;  and  to  assert  and  maintain  that 
"  they  may,  is  very  pernicious,  and  to  be  detested."  All  that  these 
words  are  intended  to  assert,  is,  that  none  of  our  fallen  race  can  be 
saved  in  any  other  way  than  through  Christ.  The  slightest  pe- 
rusal is  sufficient  to  ascertain  that  this  their  real  meaning.  But, 
even  if  the  language  of  the  clause  itself  had  left  this  point  doubtful, 
all  doubt  would  be  removed  by  attending  to  another  clause  in  the 
same  chapter,  and  only  five  lines  distant  from  that  which  we  are 
considering,  which  expressly  recognizes  the  possibility  of  some 
being  saved,  who  have  never  had  an  opportunity  of  hearing  the 
gospel  preached.  The  doctrine,  then,  of  the  passage  alluded  to 


DOCTRINE  OF  PRESBYTERIANS.  259 

by  Mr.  How,  is  simply  this,  that  it  is  false  and  pernicious  to  teach 
that  men  may  be  saved  in  any  other  way,  than  through  the  atoning 
sacrifice,  and   sanctifying  spirit  of  Christ.     A  position  in  which 
one  would  imagine  all  professing  Christians,  except  Socinians  and 
Universalists,  must,  without  hesitation,  concur.     But  Mr.   How 
exceedingly  dislikes  it,  and  is  determined  to  hold  it  up  to  detesta- 
tion and   abhorrence,  as   asserting  that  none  who  have  not  been 
favoured  with  the  preaching  of  the  gospel  can  possibly  be  saved  ; 
and  as  consigning  the  whole  heathen  world  to  inevitable  perdition. 
By  what  management  does  he  attempt  to  do  this  ?  By   faithfully 
transcribing  the  clause,  and  laying  it  before  his  readers  in  a  fair 
and  unmutilated  form  ?  Not  at  all.  Had  he  done  this,  his  purpose 
would  have  been  defeated.     Every  reader  would  instantly  have 
recognized  in  the  language  of  our  Confession  of  Faith,  a  perfect 
coincidence  with  that  of  the  scriptures.*     But  by  a  contrivance, 
which,  it  will  hereafter  be  seen,  is  not  unusual  with  this  gentleman, 
he  first  essentially  alters  the  passage,  and  then  presents  it,  regular- 
ly marked  with  inverted  commas,  as  if  it  were  the  real  language  of 
the  article.     What  that  language  \nfact  is,  you  have  already  seen. 
Mr.   How  declares  that  it  is   as  follows.      "  They  who  having 
"  never  heard  the  gospel,  know  not  Jesus  Christ,  and  believe  not 
et  in  him,  cannot  be  saved,  be  they  never  so  diligent  to  frame  their 
"  lives  according  to  the  light  of  nature."    Letters,  p.  25.    Having 
thus  taken  out  of  the  passage  an  important  clause  which  it  does 
contain,  and    added  to  it  what  it  does  not  contain,  he  holds  it  up  to 
his  readers  as  consigning  to  inevitable  perdition,  the  whole  heathen 
world.     And  assuming  this  as  the  acknowledged  construction,  he 
vehemently  declaims   against  it  as  "  uncharitable,"  "  cruel,"  a 
"  position  of  deep-toned  horror,"  and  calculated  to  "  fill  the  ra- 
u  tional  mind  with  dismay." 

But  the  most  wonderful  part  of  the  story  is  yet  to  be  told,  ft 
is  a  fact,  that  one  of  the  thirty-nine  articles  of  Mr.  How's  own 
church,  contains  precisely  the  same  declaration  that  he,  with  so 
much  violence,  condemns  in  our  Confession  of  Faith.  The  article 
referred  to,  is  the  eighteenth,  which  is  in  the  following  words. 
"  They  also  are  to  be  had  accursed,  that  presume  to  say,  that  every 
"  man  shall  be  saved  by  the  law  or  sect  which  he  professeth,  so 

*  See  particularly  Acts*.  12.  John  14.  6.  John  17.  3.  Gal  1.  6,  7,  8. 


LETTER  II. 

"  that  he  be  diligent  to  frame  his  life  according  to  that  law  and  the 
"  light  of  nature.  For  holy  scripture  doth  set  out  unto  us  only  the 
"  name  of  Jesus  Christ,  whereby  men  must  be  saved."  The  only 
difference  worthy  of  attention,  is,  that  the  Presbyterian  Confession 
of  Failh  pronounces  the  doctrine,  that  men  may  be  saved  otherwise 
than  by  Christ,  "  pernicious"  and  to  be  "  detested.9'  Whereas, 
the  episcopal  article,  more  harshly,  declares,  that  the  persons  who 
hold  it,  are  to  be  had  accursed.  This  article  Mr.  How  has  solemn- 
ly subscribed,  and  the  doctrine  contained  in  it,  he  has  canonically 
sworn  to  preach  and  support.  And  yet  he  declares  "  he  has  no 
power  to  express  the  feelings  with  which  this  most  detestable  doc- 
trine  fills  his  bosom."  To  what  can  we  ascribe  this  conduct?  I 
am  unable  to  think  of  it  without  the  deepest  astonishment  and 
horror!* 

In  a  note,  in  a  former  edition  of  this  work,  to  p.  17,  of  my 
introductory  letter,  I  expressed  myself  in  the  following  terms. 
"Several  distinguished  writers  in  Great  Britain,  who  have 
"  lately  espoused  with  much  warmth,  the  exclusive  episcopal 
"  notions  under  consideration,  do  not  scruple  to  assert,  that 
"  all  who  *  are  in  communion  with  the  episcopal  church  are 
"  in  communion  with  Christ,'  and  in  the  (  sure  road  to  salva- 
a  tion.'  They  deny  that  there  is  any  pledged  or  covenanted  mercy  $ 
"  in  other  words,  that  there  are  any  promises  given  in  the  gospel  to 
"  persons  who  are  not  in  communion  with  that  church,  however, 
"  sincere  their  faith  and  repentance,  and  however  ardent  their  piety. 
"  And,  accordingly,  they  turn  into  ridicule  every  attempt  to  distin- 
"  guish  between  a  professing  Episcopalian,  and  a  real  Christian." 
With  this  passage  Mr.  How  is  much  offended.  He  not  only  rebukes 
me  with  great  severity  for  penning  a  paragraph  so  "  calculated  to 
deceive  and  inflame  my  readers;  but  he  goes  further,  and  declares 
that  the  sentiment  which  I  ascribe  to  the  writers  in  question,  is  not 
held  by  them ;  and  that  I  "  ought  to  know,  and  cannot  but  know," 
that  they  do  not  hold  it.  Thus  charging  me  in  pretty  direct  terms 
with  writing  a  known  and  deliberate  falsehood. — p.  14, 15. 

*  The  passage  which  Mr.  How  refers  to  the  Confession  of  Faith  is  really 
to  be  found  in  the  larger  catechism,  in  the  answer  to  the  60th  question. 
As  it  contains,  however,  nothing  essentially  different  from  the  article 
quoted  either  from  the  Confession  of  Faith,  or  from  the  18th  article  of  the 
episcopal  church,  no  further  remark  seems  necessary. 


DOCTRINE  OF  PRESBYTERIANS.  261 

As  I  had  mentioned  no  names,  and  as  Mr.  How,  of  course,  could 
not  certainly  know  to  what  particular  writers  I  alluded,  it  is  some- 
what singular  that  he  should  venture  a  contradiction  with  so  much 
confidence  and  indecorum.     But  as  neither  delicacy  nor  caution 
enter  into  the  plan  of  controversy  which  this  gentleman  has  adopt- 
ed, I  no  longer  wonder  at  any  extremes  of  his  rashness  or  violence. 
The  truth  is,  that  in  the  paragraph  above  stated,  I  have  not  only 
not  intentionally  misrepresented  any  one,  but  am  also  still  persuad- 
ed that  I  fell  into  no  real  error.     But,  however  this  may  be,  all 
that  I  said,  was  advanced  on  the  authority  of  a  respectable  divine 
of  the  church  of  England,  now  living,  who  expresses  himself  in  the 
following  words.    "  Mr.  Daubeny,  in  like  manner,  sees  no  diflfer- 
"  ence  between  the  true  church  of  Christ,  and  the  national  church ; 
"  represents  professed  membership  with  this  national  society  as 
"  forming  the  line  of  distinction  between  the  world  which  lieth  in 
"  wickedness  and  a  state  of  condemnation  before  God,  and  those 
"  who  are  in  a  state  of  sanctification  and  salvation ;  and  speaks 
"  indiscriminately  of  all    who  have  been   regularly  baptized,  and 
"  remain  in  the  established  communion,  as  "  members  of  Christ's 
"  bod}7,"  "  partakers  of  Christ's  spirit,"  the  "  peculiar  property  of 
"  Christ,"  and  as  having  "  a  peculiar  interest  in  him  :"  in  other 
"  words,  as  "  translated   from  the  world,"   delivered   from  the 
"  powers  of  darkness,"  and  heirs  with  Christ  of  an  eternal  king- 
«  dom."     Guide  to  the  Church,  p.  15,   16.  171,  172.  234,  and 
"  passim.    "  .Every  Christian,"  that  is,  every  professed  Christian, 
"  he  says  again,  after  being  called  to  reconsider  the  subject,  who 
"  is  "  living  in  a  state  of  communion  with  the  church,"  namely, 
"  with  that  "  visible  society"  of  Christians,  where  the  episcopal 
"  form  of  government  is  to  be  found,  is  in  the  sure  road  to  salva- 
u  tion."     Appendix,  Letter  7?  452.     Antijacobin  Review,  Feb. 
"  1800,  p.  145.     The  distinction  between  the  national  establish- 
"  ment,  and  the  true  church  of  Christ,  Mr.  Daubeny  teaches,  is 
"  unnecessary,"  and  a  "  false   distinction."     "  That,"  he  says, 
"  may  be  a  true  church  in  which  the  pure  word  of  God  is  not 
"  preached."     Appendix,  p.  252,  475,  476.     Mr.  Polwhele  con- 
"  siders  it  among  the  greatest  extravangancies,  to  think  unfavour- 
"  ably  of  the  state  of  ma«y,  "  who  every  Lord's  day  attend  the 
"  the  service  of  the  church.     Letter  to  Dr.  Hawker,  p.  38.     Dr. 
"  Paley,  Dr.  Croft,  and  their  admirers,  teach  that  the  scripture 


262  LETTER  II. 

«  titles  of  «  elect,"  «  called,"  «  saints,"  being  in  Christ,"  &c. 
"  were  intended  in  a  sense  common  to  all  Christian  converts,"  and 
«  that,  "  the  application  of  such  titles  to  distinguish  individuals 
"  amongst  us,  the  professors  of  Christianity,  from  one  another," 
"  argues  the  greatest  ignorance  and  presumption.  Dr.  Paley's, 
"  Visitation  Serm.  at  Carlisle,  1777,  p.  11,  12.  Dr.  Croft's 
"  preface  to  his  Thoughts,  &c.  and  Mr.  Clapham's  Sermon.  In 
"  further  conformity  to  this  doctrine,  the  scripture  terras  and 
"  phrases,  "  conversion,"  "  regeneration,"  the  becoming  "  dead 
"  to  sin,"  and  "  alive  from  the  dead,"  the  being  made  "  sons  of 
"  God,  from  children  of  wrath,"  these  divines  tell  us,  now  mean 
"  nothing,'9  that  is,  as  they  explain  it,  "  nothing  to  us,  or  to  any 
"  one  educated  in  a  Christian  country."*  What  Mr.  How  him- 
self may  think  of  his  own  prudence,  after  reading  these  extracts,  I 
know  not ;  but  I  should  suppose  that  others  could  be  at  no  loss 
what  opinion  to  form  on  the  subject. 

Mr.  How  refers  frequently,  and  with  much  triumph,  to  a  passage 
toward  the  close  of  my  letters  in  which  he  considers  me  as  having 
advanced  a  claim  as  high  and  offensive  as  his  own,  and  also,  as 
having  contradicted  myself.  The  passage  alluded  to,  is  one  which 
occurs  in  discussing  the  doctrine  of  uninterrupted  succession,  and 
is  in  the  following  words.  t(  If,  as  we  have  proved  in  the  foregoing 
"  letters,  the  right  of  ordination,  according  to  Scripture  and  primi- 
"  tive  usage,  belongs  to  presbyters,  it  is  evident  that  the  succession 
"  through  them,  is  as  valid  as  any  other  :  or  rather,  to  speak  more 
"  properly,  it  is  only  so  far  as  any  succession  flows  through  the 
"  line  of  presbyters,  that  it  is  either  regular  or  valid.  It  is  the  laying 
"  on  of  the  hands  of  the  presbytery,  that  constitutes  a  scriptural 

*  OVERTOILS  True  Churchmen  Ascertained.  2d  Edit.  p.  115—118.  Ix 
will  probably  be  contended  by  Mr.  How  and  his  friends  in  this  contro- 
versy, that  Mr.  Overton,  though  a  good  churchman,  is  not  accurate  in  his 
representation.  He  has  indeed  been  loaded  with  much  abuse  by  many 
for  his  fidelity.  But  it  unluckily  happens,  that  the  editors  of  the  Chris- 
tian Observer,  though  warm  Episcopalians,  and  men  of  great  talents  and 
learning,  fully  justify  M.  Overton  in  the  substance  of  his  representation. 
They  think,  it  is  true,  that  he  scarcely  does  justice  to  Mr.  Daubeny  ; 
but  they  acknowledge  at  the  same  time,  that  Mr.  D.  has  too  frequently 
expressed  himself  in  a  manner  calculated  to  give  countenance  to  the 
opinions  ascribed  to  him, 


DOCTRINE  OP  PRESBYTERIANS.  263 

"  ordination ;  and  it  is  because  Episcopal  bishops  are  presbyters, 
"  and  assisted  in  all  ordinations  by  other  presbyters,  that  we  con- 
"  sider  their  ordaining  acts,  on  the  principles  of  Scripture  and  prirai- 
"  live  usage,  as  valid."  In  this  passage,  Mr.  H,  asserts,  that  I  have 
pronounced  Presbyterian  ordination   alone  to  be  valid,  and,  of 
course,  have  unchurched  all  who  are  destitute  of  it.     Now  as  the 
whole  strain  of  my  volume  is  of  a  different  kind  ;  and  as,  in  various 
parts  of  it,  an  opposite  doctrine  is  explicitly  avowed  and  maintain- 
ed, candour,  I  think,  should  have  dictated  to  this  gentleman  a  more 
favourable  construction,  even  supposing  my  language  to  admit  of 
that  which  he  puts  upon  it.     But,  in  truth,  when  this  passage  is 
examined,  it  will  be  found  that  the  doctrine  which  it  contains,  is  so 
far  from  being  high-toned  and  offensive,  that  it  is  taking  the  very 
lowest  ground  that  any  denomination  of  Christians,  who  hold  to 
a  regular  ministry  at  all, 'have  maintained.     What  does  it  say?  It 
affirms  that  ordination  by  presbyters  is  valid,  and  that  it  is  the  only 
ordination   which  the  Scriptures  warrant.     Now  the  Presbyterian 
pastors,  the  episcopal  bishops,  the  ministers  of  the  Independent, 
Lutheran,  Methodist,  and  Baptist  churches,  are  all  presbyters  ;  and 
of  course,  are  all  empowered  to  ordain.  The  doctrine  of  the  above 
cited  passage,  therefore,  instead  of  being  high-toned  or  exclusive, 
recognizes  as  valid  the  ordinations  of  every  church  on  earth,  which 
receives  and  acts  on  the  principle  that  clerical  ordination  of  any 
kind  is  necessary. 

But  after  all,  how  has  the  episcopal  claim  been  construed  by 
impartial  judges?  If,  as  these  gentlemen  assert,  the  most  zealous 
and  high-toned  advocates  of  prelacy,  do  not  lay  greater  stress  on 
their  particular  form  of  church  order,  than  Presbyterians  do  on 
theirs  ;  if  they  make  no  greater  nor  more  offensive  claims  ;  how 
has  it  come  to  pass  that  the  contrary  has  been,  by  all  parties,  so 
generally  understood  and  acknowledged  ?  How  has  it  happened, 
that  every  respectable  Presbyterian  who  ever  wrote  on  this  subject 
has  utterly  disclaimed  sentiments  in  anywise  resembling  those  of 
thejwre  divino  prelatists  ?  How  has  it  come  to  pass  that  many 
warm  friends  of  episcopacy  have  reprobated  the  claims  of  some  of 
their  own  denomination,  as  peculiar  to  themselves,  as  well  as 
groundless  and  offensive  ?  How  could  such  men  as  archbishop 
Wake,  be  so  grossly  deceived  ?  He,  in  a  letter  to  a  Presbyterian 
minister  of  Geneva,  in  the  year  1719,  pronounced  the  high-church- 


264  LETTER  II. 

men  of  his  day,  for  advancing  exactly  such  claims  as  thoseof  Dr. 
fiowdenand  Mr.  How,  to  be  madmen.*  Was  this  respectable  pre- 
late ;  were  the  great  body  of  the  most  eminent  writers,  both  Pres- 
byterian and  episcopal,  who  have  treated  of  this  subject  for  the  last 
two  hundred  years,  all  ignorant  and  mistaken  ?  I  must  be  allowed 
to  believe  that  they  were  at  least  as  learned,  and  discerning,  and 
that  they  understood  the  points  in  dispute,  at  least  as  well  as  either 
Dr.  Bowden  or  Mr.  How. 

Dr.  Bowden  and  Mr.  How,  more  than  once  accuse  me  of  depart- 
ing from  the  doctrine  of  our  Confession  of  Faith,  concerning  the 
Christian  ministry;  and  express  some  apprehensions  that  I  maybe 
called  to  an  account  by  my  own  church,  for  deviating  from  her 
standards.  The  former  of  these  gentleman  also  observes,  that, 
before  he  saw  my  Letters,  he  had  supposed  me  to  be  a  Presbyterian; 
but  that  to  such  Presbyterianism  as  mine  both  Calvin  and  Knox 
were  entire  strangers.  The  best  refutation  of  these  charges  will 
be  found  in  the  facts  exhibited  in  the  following  sheets ;  the  slightest 
attention  to  which  will  convince  you,  that,  until  my  opponents 
become  better  acquainted  with  our  Confesssion  of  Faith,  and  also 
with  the  writings  of  Presbyterian  Reformers,  they  are  but  ill  quali- 
fied to  pronounce  what  system  agrees  or  is  at  variance  with  these 
great  authorities. 

But  although  I  am  not  conscious  of  departing  either  from  the 
letter  or  the  spirit  of  that  Confession  of  Faith  which  I  have  solemn- 
ly subscribed ;  and  although  I  am  confident  that  my  Presbyterian- 
ism  is  substantially  the  same  with  that  of  Calvin  and  Knox  ;  yet 
let  us  remember  that  we  are  to  call  no  man,  or  body  of  men,  Mas-, 
ter  on  earth.  One  is  our  Master,  even  Christ.  His  WORD  is  the 
sole  standard  by  which,  as  Christians,  or  as  churches,  we  must 
stand  or  fall.  Happy  will  it  be  for  us,  if  we  can  appeal  to  the  great 
Searcher  of  hearts,  that  we  have  not  followed  the  traditions  and 
inventions  of  men,  but  the  sure  word  of  prophecy,  which  is  given 
us  to  be  a  light  to  our  feet,  and  a  lamp  to  our  path,  to  guide  us  in 
the  way  of  peace  ! 

*  See  my  former  letters,  p.  174,  175. 


(  265  ) 


LETTER   III. 


TESTIMONY  OF   SCRIPTURE. 


CHRISTIAN  BRETHREN, 

IN  the  second  letter  of  my  former  series,  I  endeavoured  to  estab- 
lish the  principle,  that  the  only  testimony  by  which  the  controversy 
in  question  ever  ought  to  be,  or  can  be  decided,  is  that  of  Scrip- 
ture. The  word  of  God  is  the  only  perfect  and  infallible  rule  of 
faith  and  practice.  The  moment  we  quit  this  ground,  we  are 
plunged  into  all  the  uncertainty  of  tradition,  and  into  all  the  con- 
fusion of  contradictory  testimony.  The  moment  we  quit  this  ground, 
the  defence  of  Protestantism  against  the  Papists  is  impossible.  In 
this  general  principle,  our  episcopal  brethren  concur.  They 
acknowledge  that  the  question  before  us  is  a  matter  of  fact,  to  be 
ascertained  by  a  sound  interpretation  of  Scripture.  And  yet,  for 
the  most  part,  they  have  no  sooner  made  the  acknowledgment,  than 
they  contradict  themselves,  by  setting  human  authority  above  the 
inspired  volume. 

In  this  inconsistent  course,  Dr.  Bowden  has  signalized  himself. 
He  has,  indeed,  pursued  it  with  a  degree  of  boldness  which  is  truly 
rare.  He  does  not  think  it  necessary  even  to  save  appearances. 
Instead  of  assigning  to  Scripture  the  first  and  highest  place;  instead 
of  beginning  with  it,  and  permitting  it  to  stand  on  its  own  proper 
eminence,  he  begins  with  the  fathers  !  Nor  is  this  all.  As  if 
afraid  of  examining  and  exhibiting  the  testimony  of  the  fathers  in 
their  natural  order,  from  the  apostolic  age  downwards,  he  begins 
2  L 


266  LETTER  III. 

with  the  fathers  of  the  fourth  century  ;  reasons  backward  ;  assumes 
the  corrupt  principles  and  language  of  that  age  as  genuine,  and  then 
employs  them  to  interpret  the  primitive  writers;  and  thus  endea- 
vours to  make  his  readers  believe  that  the  order  of  the  church  was 
the  same  in  the  fourth,  that  it  had  been  in  ihejirst  century;  and 
that  the  words  bishop,  elder,  deacon,  meant  exactly  the  same  thing 
in  the  days  of  Eusebius,  Basil,  and  Jerome,  that  they  had  done  in 
the  days  of  the  apostles.  I  thank  Dr.  Bowden  for  the  important 
concessions  which  this  course  of  reasoning  tacitly  discloses.  I 
thank  him  for  the  manifest  unwillingness  which  he  discovers  to 
encounter  either  the  testimony  of  Scripture  alone,  or  the  testimony 
of  the  early  fathers  alone.  His  very  arrangement  of  evidence 
speaks  more  than  volumes.  Of  the  fairness  of  this  arrangement, 
I  say  nothing.  No  reader  of  the  smallest  discernment  needs  a 
single  remark  to  aid  him  in  judging  of  this  point.  But  I  could 
scarcely  have  asked  for  a  more  humiliating  confession  of  the  weak- 
ness of  his  cause,  and  of  his  distressing  consciousness  that  neither 
Scripture  nor  early  antiquity  will  bear  him  out  in  his  claims,  than 
is  to  be  found  in  this  management,  which  he,  no  doubt,  considered 
as  a  master  stroke  of  policy.  But  this  gentleman  goes  a  step  fur- 
ther. After  conducting  his  readers  through  a  catalogue  of  quota- 
tions, placed  in  retrograde  order,  from  the  fourth  century  upward 
to  the  apostles  ;  after  presenting  to  them  a  corresponding  series  of 
pictures  in  an  inverted,  and  therefore  deceptive  light ;  and  after 
bringing  them,  wearied  and  perplexed,  to  the  dividing  line  between 
the  fathers  and  the  canon  of  Scripture,  he  expresses  himself  in  the 
following  terms :  "  As  episcopacy  appears  from  a  cloud  of  wit- 
"  nesses  to  be  the  government  of  the  church  at  the  close  of  the  apos- 
"  tolic  age,  it  can  never  be  admitted  that  any  thing  in  the  New 
"  Testament  militates  against  this  fact.33  Letters,  i.  p.  240.  The 
plain  English  of  this  declaration  is,"  The  controversy  is  to  be  de- 
"  cided  by  the  fathers.  In  approaching  the  inspired  volume,  we  are 
"previously  to  take  for  granted  that  it  does  not,  and  cannot  con- 
"  tain  any  thing  contrary  to  their  testimony.  And  even  if  it  appears 
"  to  contain  facts  or  principles  inconsistent  with  their  writings,  we 
"  are  to  draw  our  conclusions  from  the  latter  rather  than  the  former. 
"  Were  the  scriptures  to  teach  otherwise  than  the  fathers,  we  could 
".  not  believe  them."  I  do  not  say  that  this  doctrine  is,  in  so  many 


TESTIMONY  OF  SCRIPTURE.  267 

words,  avowed  by  the  reverend  professor  ;  nor  even  that  he  dis- 
tinctly recognizes  such  a  monstrous  position  in  his  own  mind  :  but 
I  will  say,  that  such  is  the  spirit  of  the  principle  which  he  lays 
down,  and  that  I  verily  believe  him  to  have  been  governed  by  it  in 
all  his  reasonings. 

But  although  my  opponents  discover  so  much  reluctance  to  be 
judged  by  the  law,  and  the  testimony,  I  hope,  my  brethren,  we 
shall  never  so  far  forget  our  character  as  Christians  and  Protestants, 
as  lo  suffer  our  faith  or  practice  to  be  tried  by  any  other  test.  I 
will,  therefore,  request  your  serious  and  impartial  attention  to  some 
further  remarks  on  the  scriptural  evidence  relative  to  the  subject 
before  us.  You  will  not  expect  me,  however,  again  to  go  over  the 
whole  ground  of  the  scriptural  argument.  I  shall  only  advert  to  a 
few  points  on  which  either  the  most  plausible  or  the  most  excep- 
tionable strictures  have  been  made  on  our  principles,  as  formerly 
advanced  and  defended. 

I  again  assert,  then,  that  there  is  not  to  be  found  in  the  whole 
New  Testament  a  single  doctrine  or  fact,  which  yields  the  least 
solid  support  to  the  cause  of  prelacy  ;  but  that,  on  the  contrary, 
the  whole  strain  of  the  evangelical  records  is  favourable  to  the 
doctrine  of  ministerial  parity. 

Dr.  Bowden  still  insists  that  the  angels  of  the  seven  Asiatic 
churches,  spoken  of  in  Rev.  ii.  and  iii.  were  no  other  than  diocesan 
bishops.  But  really  he  does  little  more  than  assert  and  re-assert 
this,  without  producing  any  proof  that  deserves  to*  be  considered 
even  as  plausible.  I  had  asked,  "  Is  it  certain  that  by  these 
"  angels  are  meant  individual  ministers  ?"  Dr.  Bowden  replies 
"  I  think  there  can  be  no  doubt  of  it."  A  very  strong  argument, 
it  must  be  acknowledged  !  But  unfortunately  there  is  much  doubt 
of  it.  Some  of  the  most  learned  and  able  Episcopalians  that  ever 
lived,  have  not  only  doubted,  but  denied  it.  And  Dr.  Mason  has 
lately  shown,  with  a  force  of  argument  which,  in  my  opinion,  no 
impartial  mind  can  resist,  that  the  title  of  angel  in  this  portion  of 
scripture,  is  a  symbolical  term,  intended  to  express  the  ministry 
collectively  of  each  of  those  churches  ;  that  both  the  phraseology 
and  matter  of  the  addresses  made  to  the  angels  are,  in  several 
instances,  such  as  could  only  be  directed  to  collective  bodies  ;  and 
that  to  consider  the  title  as  designating  an  individual,  is  a  con- 


268  LETTER  III. 

struction  attended  not  only  with  insuperable  difficulty,  but  with 
manifest  absurdity.* 

But,  admitting  that  this  term  designates  individual  ministers, 
does  it  follow  that  they  can  be  no  other  than  diocesan  bishops  ? 
By  no  means.  The  angels  of  Ephesus,  Smyrna,  &c,  might  have 
been,  as  was  observed  in  my  former  letters,  the  moderators  of  the 
presbyteries  of  those  cities  respectively  ;  or  they  might  have  been 
the  senior  pastors,  to  whom,  on  account  of  their  standing  and  age, 
all  communications  intended  for  the  churches  in  which  they  mi- 
nistered, were,  by  common  consent,  directed.  The  rector  of 
Trinity  Church,  in  the  city  of  New  York,  has  Jive  congregations 
under  his  pastoral  care,  and  is  aided  by  the  labours  of  several 
assistant  clergymen  ;  yet  this  rector  is  not,  as  such,  a  bishop ;  nor 
are  his  assistant  clergymen  inferior  in  order  to  him.  The  whole 
city  of  Edinburgh,  in  Scotland,  is  one  parish,  while  there  are  near 
twenty  churches,  and  more  than  twenty  ministers,  within  and 
belonging  to  that  parish  ;  still  all  these  ministers  are  ecclesiastically 
equal,  excepting  that  there  is  a  moderator  of  the  city  presbytery, 
who  has  certain  powers  vested  in  him,  for  convening  the  body,  and 
preserving  order  during  the  sessions  ;  and  to  whom,  also,  all  letters 
are  directed,  and  all  communications  made.  And  yet  this  is  not 
considered  as  at  all  infringing  the  doctrine  of  Presbyterian  parity. 
In  truth,  neither  the  title  of  angel,  nor  the  addresses  made  to 
those  on  whom  it  was  bestowed,  nor  any  of  the  powers  implied  in 
these  addresses,  give  the  least  countenance  to  the  system  of  prela- 
cy ;  and  to  suppose  that  they  do,  is  as  gross  an  instance  of  begging 
the  whole  question  in  dispute,  as  can  well  be  produced. 

Dr.  Bowden  appears,  indeed,  to  be  sensible,  that  the  scriptures, 
left  to  speak  for  themselves,  by  no  means  decide  that  the  angels  in 
question  were  prelates :  he,  therefore,  has  recourse  to  Ircnaus, 
Clemens  of  Alexandria,  Eusebius,  Ambrose,  &c.  to  help  him  out 
in  his  difficulty.  They,  it  seems,  assert  that  these  angels  were  the 


*  See  that  gentleman's  very  luminous  and  able  review  of  the  episcopal 
essays  in  the  Christian's  Magazine.  This  work,  which  I  consider  as  one 
of  the  ablest  periodical  publications  that  ever  appeared,  ought  to  be  in 
the  hands  of  every  one  who  wishes  to  attain  clear  and  sound  views  of 
"  evangelical  truth  and  order." 


TESTIMONY  OF  SCRIPTURE.  269 

bishops  of  the  respective  churches  mentioned  in  connexion  with 
their  names.  But  supposing  these  fathers  to  be,  in  all  respects, 
credible  witnesses  ;  and  supposing,  too,  that  their  assertion  is 
founded,  not  on  conjecture,  but  authentic  records .;  it  still  remains 
to  be  ascertained  in  what  sense  they  use  the  word  bishop.  What 
kind  of  bishops  do  they  mean  ?  Such  bishops  as  the  Presbyterian, 
and  the  great  body  of  the  reformed  churches,  allow  to  have  existed 
in  the  days  of  the  apostles,  and  still  retain,  or  such  as  our  episcopal 
brethren  contend  for  ?  Dr.  Bowden  undertakes  to  assert  that  they 
were  of  the  latter  kind  ;  but  he  says  it  without  authority  ;  for  the 
fathers  whom  he  quotes  as  witnesses,  do  not  say  so.  They  might 
have  been  scriptural  bishops,  without,  in  the  least  degree,  serving 
the  episcopal  argument. 

Dr.  Bowden  endeavours  to  press  the  learned  Blondel  into  his 
service,  by  representing  him  as  admitting  that  the  angels  of  the 
Asiatic  churches  are  addressed  as  "  having  jurisdiction  over  both 
clergy  and  laity  5"  and  thus  by  implication  as  acknowledging  the 
existence  of  diocesan  episcopacy  in  the  apostolic  age.  This  is  a 
mistake.  Blondel  says  no  such  thing.  After  investigating  this 
subject  perhaps  as  profoundly  as  any  man  ever  did,  he  tells  us, 
that  during  the  apostolic  age,  and  for  a  considerable  time  after, 
bishop  and  presbyter  were  reciprocally  one  and  the  same;  that 
these  were  combined  into  classes  or  presbyteries  ;  that  the  eldest 
minister j  pastor,  or  bishop  belonging  to  the  presbytery,  was,  by 
virtue  of  his  seniority,  constantly  the  moderator  ;  that  when  he 
died,  the  next  in  age  succeeded  him,  of  course ',  and  continued  to 
hold  the  place  daring  life.  "  These  senior  pastors,"  says  he, 
"  had  a  certain  singular  and  peerless  power,  such  a  power  as  all 
"  moderators,  after  whatsoever  manner  constituted,  ever  had,  and 
"  ever  will  have,  belonging  to  them.  Neither  was  the  moderator 
"  of  any  of  these  sacred  colleges,  chief  among  his  colleague  pres- 
"  byters,  as  a  presbyter,  or  as  one  placed  in  higher  order  above  all 
"  the  other  presbyters  ;  but  as  the  eldest  andjirst  ordained  pastor. 
"  Nor  did  the  rest  as  presbyters,  but  as  younger  presbyters,  and 
u  afterwards  ordained, "yield  the  moderatorship  to  him.  His  office 
"  was  to  exhort  the  brotherhood  ;  to  war  a  good  warfare ;  to  com- 
"  mend  them  to  God  by  prayer  ;  to  gather  the  presbytery  ;  to  give 
"  them  a  good  example ;  and  to  declare  himself  to  be  a  diligent 
"  messenger  of  God  to  mankind.  And,  therefore,  as  Christ  does 'in 


270  LETTER  III. 

"  his  admonitions  to  the  angels  of  the  Asiatic  churches,  both  the 
"  good  and  the  evil  deeds  of  the  churches  might  be  imputed  to  these 
"  moderators."  And  again  he  says  :  "  Linus,  as  he  was  a  bishop, 
"  had  for  colleagues  Clement  and  Anacletus,  who  were  shortly 
"  after  ordained  bishops^  with  himself,  in  the  same  church  of  Rome. 
"  But  as  he  was  the  exarch  or  moderator  of  the  brethren,  he 
"  neither  had,  nor  could  have  any  colleagues,  (seeing  the  modera- 
"  torship  can  only  fall  to  one  person  at  once)  but  only  successors . 
"  There  was  a  plurality  of  bishops,  presbyters,  or  governors,  at 
u  same  time,  and  in  the  same  church.  All  these  pastors  or  bishops, 
"  on  the  very  account  of  their  presbyterate,  were  endued  with 
"  equal  power  and  honour.  The  moderator  was  subject  to  the 
"presbytery,  and  obeyed  its  commands  with  no  less  submission 
"  than  did  the  meanest  of  their  number.  He  had  the  chief  power  in 
"  the  college  of  presbyters,  but  had  no  power  over  the  college  it- 
"  self."  And,  as  if  this  learned  man  had  been  aware  of  every  cavil 
that  ignorance  or  sophistry  could  suggest,  he  expressly  compares 
these  ancient  moderators  with  the  moderators  of  presbyteries,  in 
the  reformed  churches  of  Scotland  and  France,  and  assigns  to  the 
former  no  more  power  or  pre-eminence  than  belongs  to  the  latter. 
Blondelli  Apolog.  Pra>fat.  pag.  6,7.  18.  35.  38.  I  make  no 
comment  on  Dr.  Bowden's  perversion  of  these  plain  declarations. 
If  he  fell  into  it  ignorantly,  he  is  to  be  excused;  if  wilfully  no 
reader  will  be  at  a  loss  for  appropriate  reflections. 

Of  the  same  character,  and  equally  destitute  of  force,  is  all  that 
Dr.  Bowden  has  advanced  to  show  that  Timothy  and  Titus  were 
prelates.  After  filling  about  thirty  pages  with  what  he  calls  his 
proofs  of  this  point,  he  will  really  be  found,  when  closely 
examined,  to  have  done  little  more  than  beg  the  whole  question  in 
dispute. 

He  insists  that  Timothy  and  Titus  were  not  sent  to  Ephesus  and 
Crete  in  the  character  of  Evangelists;  that  they  had  finished  all 
the  labours  which  belonged  to  them  in  this  character,  before  they 
went  thither  ;  and  that  their  principal  duties  in  those  places  were 
of  an  higher  kind,  and  appropriate  to  an  higher  office.,  Nay,  he 
formally  sets  it  down,  in  a  long  catalogue,  as  one  of  my  "  un- 
founded assertions,"  that  I  represent  them  as  acting  in  that  capa- 
city in  the  Ephesian  and  Cretian  churches.  Has  Dr.  Bowden 
eve*r  read  that  portion  of  the  New  Testament  which  is  called  the 


TESTIMONY  OF  SCRIPTURE.  271 

second  epistle  to  Timothy?  Does  not  the  apostle  Paul  sav  to 
Timothy,  in  that  epistle,  Do  the  work  of  an  evangelist  ?  And 
was  this  written  before  he  went  to  Ephesus  ?  Truly,  when  this 
gentleman  can  permit  himself,  with  so  little  ceremony,  to  contra- 
dict an  inspired  apostle,  I  need  not  wonder  that  others  fare  so 
roughly  in  his  hands.  Nor  will  it  afford  any  relief  to  his  cause,  to 
cavil  about  the  meaning  of  the  word  evangelist.  Whatever  it 
then  meant,  or  may  now  mean,  it  is  certain  that  Paul  applied  it 
to  Timothy,  and  that  after  he  had  been  sent  on  his  Ephesian 
mission.  And  if  it  were  applied  to  Timothy,  no  good  reason  can 
be  assigned  why  it  may  not,  with  equal  propriety,  be  applied  to 
Titus.  In  fact,  if  it  be  conceded  that  the  former  was  an  Evan- 
gelist, and  acted  as  such,  when  the  epistles  directed  to  him  were 
written,  the  friends  of  prelacy  can  have  no  interest  in  contending 
that  the  latter  bore  a  different  character ;  for  the  same  reasoning, 
in  substance,  applies  to  both. 

But  Dr.  Bowden  still  contends,  that  Timothy  and  Titus  were 
diocesan  bishops,  because  they  were  empowered  to  ordain  others 
to  the  work  of  the  gospel  ministry?  Shall  we  never  have  done 
with  this  begging  of  the  whole  question,  in  a  manner  so  unworthy 
of  logicians  and  divines  ?  Suppose  they  were  empowered  to 
ordain  ?  What  then  ?  Do  we  not  consider  presbyters  aS  invested 
with  this  power?  And  is  it  not  the  great  object  of  Dr.  Bowden's 
book  to  show  that  it  was  otherwise  ?  Why,  then,  does  he  attempt 
to  impose  upon  his  readers  by  taking  the  main  point  for  granted  ? 
Let  him  first  prove  that,  in  the  primitive  church,  none  were  per- 
mitted to  ordain,  but  an  order  of  ministers  superior  to  presbyters, 
and  then  his  argument  from  the  fact  of  Timothy  and  Titus  having 
been  invested  with  the  ordaining  power,  will  be  conclusive ;  but 
until  he  shall  have  established  the  former,  which  neither  he  nor  any 
other  man  has  done,  or  can  do,  the  latter  will  be  considered,  by 
every  discerning  reader,  as  worse  than  trifling. 

Dr.  Bowden  and  his  friends  also  lay  great  stress  on  another 
point.  They  take  for  granted  that  there  had  been  Elders  (or 
presbyters")  ordained  by  the  apostle  Paul  himself,  both  at  Ephesus 
and  Crete  before  Timothy  and  Titus  were  sent  to  those  places. 
Assuming  this  as  a  fact,  they  say,  these  presbyters,  on  Presbyterian 
principles,  must  have  been  invested  with  the  ordaining  power ; 
but  if  this  were  so,  why  were  others  sent  on  so  long  a  journey,  to 


272  LETTER  ill. 

x 

perform  that  which  persons  on  the  spot  could  have  done  as  well  ? 
Here,  again,  every  thing  is  taken  for  granted.  Where  did  Dr. 
B.  learn  that  there  had  been  presbyters  fixed  either  in  Ephesus  or 
Crete,  before  Timothy  or  Titus  went  thither?  The  sacred  history 
says  no  such  thing.  With  what  face,  then,  can  any  man  undertake 
to  found  his  whole  argument  on  a  mere  assumption  ?  It  is  certain 
that  the  epistle  to  Titus  contains  a  direction  to  ordain  elders  in 
every  city.  There  were,  therefore,  some  cities,  at  least,  which  were 
not  furnished  with  the  requisite  number,  and  probably  with  none  at 
all.  But  admitting  that  there  were  elders  already  ordained  both  at 
Ephesus  and  Crete,  still  the  argument  is  good  for  nothing.  That 
some  portions  of  those  churches  were  unfurnished  with  ministers 
of  any  kind,  and  that  they  were  all  in  a  comparatively  unorganized 
and  immature  state,  is  perfectly  manifest  from  the  whole  strain  of 
the  apostle's  language  concerning  them.  Was  it  unnatural,  on 
Presbyterian  principles,  that  in  this  state  of  things,  special  mission- 
aries should  be  sent  among  them  ;  men  well  known  as  possessing 
the  entire  confidence  of  the  apostle;  fully  instructed  in  their  duty  ; 
and  qualified  to  travel  from  place  to  place,  and  set  in  order  the 
things  which  were  wanting  ?  Might  not  many  prudential  con- 
siderations have  rendered  it  expedient  to  send  such  eminent 
characters  from  a  distance,  rather  than  to  select  men  of  less  distin- 
guished and  commanding  reputation  on  the  spot,  to  perform  a  ser- 
vice as  delicate  as  it  was  arduous  ?  In  fact  this  is  precisely  the 
course  which  has  been,  more  than  once,  pursued,  in  Presbyterian 
churches,  when  they  were  in  an  unsettled  state,  without  any  one 
ever  dreaming  that  it  infringed  the  doctrine  of  ministerial  parity  ; 
or  that  it  implied  any  deficiency  of  power  in  those  ministers  who 
resided  nearer  the  scene  of  action. 

But  Dr.  Bowden  further  contends,  that  Timothy  and  Titus  were 
empowered  to  ordain  alone  ;  that  is,  that  in  the  ordinations  which 
they  performed  at  Ephesus  and  Crete,  there  were  no  other  ordainers 
joined  with  them  ;  and  hence  he  infers  that  the  Presbyterian  doc- 
trine cannot  be  true,  because  our  rules  do  not  admit  of  ordination 
by  a  single  presbyter.  Here,  once  more,  this  dextrous  disputant 
takes  for  granted  the  very  thing  to  be  proved.  Who  informed  him 
that  Timothy  was  the  sole  ordainer  at  Ephesu$,'di\d  Titus  at  Crete? 
The'  epistles  to  those  evangelists  do  not  say  so.  Is  he  sure  that 
they  had  not  travelling  companions,  of  equal  power  with  them- 


TESTIMONY  OF  SCRIPTURE.  273 

selves,  who  united  with  them  in  every  ordination  ?  can  he  deter- 
mine for  what  purpose  Mark  travelled  with  Timothy  ;  and  Zenas 
and  ^polios  with  Titus  ?  Or  can  he  undertake  to  say  that  these 
persons  never  joined  in  setting  apart  others  to  the  ministry  ?  "  Dr. 
B.  is  confident  there  .had  been  presbyters  ordained,  both  at 
Ephesus  and  Crete  before  these  evangelists  went  thither.  Now, 
if  there  were  such  presbyters  in  those  churches,  will  he  venture  to 
assert,  that  one  or  more  of  these  were  not  always  joined  with  Timo- 
thy and  Titus  in  ordaining  other  presbyters?*  In  short,  neither 
Dr.  B.  nor  any  other  man  knows  any  thing  about  these  matters; 
and  yet  he  assumes  facts,  and  argues  upon  them  with  as  much  con- 
fidence, as  if  he  were  perfectly  acquainted  with  every  minute 
particular. 

This  gentleman,  however,  still  pleads,  that  directions  about 
ordaining  ministers,  and  regulating  the  affairs  of  the  church  were 
given  to  Timothy  and  Titus  alone ;  that  we  hear  of  no  others 
joined  with  them  in  those  instructions;  and  that  we  have  no  right 
to  suppose  there  were  such.  This  plea  does  not  deserve  an 
answer;  but  it  shall  have  one.  Suppose  one  of  our  Presbyteries 
or  Synods  were  to  send  out  a  company  of  two  or  three  mission- 
aries ;  and  for  the  sake  of  convenience,  were  to  convey  their 
instructions  in  the  form  of  a  letter  to  the  oldest  and  most  prudent 
of  the  number  ;  would  this  individual  have  reason  to  consider 
himself  as  a  person  of  a  superior  order,  on  account  of  such  a  cir- 
cumstance ?  Again,  when  we  ordain  a  minister,  the  person  who 
presides  in  the  ordination  generally  recites  to  the  newly  admitted 

*  Dr.  Bowden  appears  to  think  it  strange  that  1  suggest  the  possibility 
that  some  of  the  presbyters  of  Ephesus  and  Crete  might  have  been 
united  with  Timothy  and  Titus  in  their  ordaining1  acts;  when  I  had 
before  represented  it  as  utterly  uncertain  whether  there  were  such 
presbyters  in  existence,  and  as  rather  probable  that  there  were  not.  But 
there  is  no  inconsistency  here.  I  only  mean  to  show  that  Dr.  B.  does 
not  know  whether  there  were  or  wer.e  not  such  presbyters;  and  that  he 
can  gain  nothing  by  either  supposition.  If  there  were  none  such  at 
Ephesus  or  Crete  before  these  evangelists  were  sent,  then  a  funda- 
mental argument  in  favour  of  the  prelatical  character  of  Timothy  and 
Titus  is  destroyed.  If  there  were  such,  then  they  might  have  assisted, 
for  aught  we  know,  in  every  ordination:  and  then  another  boasted  argu- 
ment on  the  same  side  falls  to  the  ground.  Which  ever  supposition  is 
adopted,  it  is  equally  fatal. 
2  M 


274  LETTER  III. 

brother  many  passages  from  the  epistles  to  Timothy  and  Titus, 
seldom  omitting,  in  particular,  the  injunction — Lay  hands  sud- 
denly on  no  man.  But  'no  minister  ever  considered  this  mode  of 
addrtss,  as  constituting  him  the  sole  ordainer  in  any  case  in 
which  he  should  afterwards  act.  It  would  be  as  reasonable  to  say, 
that  because  the  apostle  gave  Timothy  direction  about  public 
preaching,  therefore  HE  alone  was  empowered  to  preach ;  or, 
because  he  was  instructed  with  respect  to  some  parts  of  public 
prayer,*  therefore  HE  only  was  allowed  to  pray.  But  there  would 
be  no  end  to  such  absurdities.  It  is  really  wonderful  that  gentle- 
men who  appear  to  be  serious,  should  lay  so  much  stress  on  argu- 
ments, much  better  calculated  to  pour  ridicule  on  their  cause,  than 
to  afford  it  efficient  aid. 

But,  admitting  that  Timothy  and  Titus  each  acted  as  sole 
ordainers  at  Ephesus  and  Crete — the  probability  is,  that  they 
did  not ;  but,  supposing  it  proved  that  they  did,  it  does  not  affect 
the  question  in  dispute.  Although  Presbyterians,  wishing  to  con- 
form as  perfectly  as  possible  to  scriptural  example,  require  a  plu- 
rality of  ministers  to  be  present,  and  to  lay  on  their  hands  in  ordi- 
nation ;  yet  I  have  no  reason  to  suppose  that  any  Presbyterian 
minister  or  church,  would  consider  an  ordination  performed,  in  a 
case  of  necessity,  by  a  single  presbyter,  as  null  and  void.  Suppos- 
ing it  proved,  therefore,  that  -an  inspired  apostle,  in  a  new  and 
unsettled  state  of  the  church,  sent  forth  evangelists  singly  to 
preach,  ordain,  and  organize  churches,  it  would  establish  nothing, 
either  way,  material  to  the  present  controversy. 

Every  thing,  therefore,  that  Dr.  Bowden  has  advanced  to  estab- 

*  By  the  way,  it  is  not  a  little  remarkable  that  the  apostle  should  con- 
tent himself  with  giving  Timothy  only  general  directions  with  respect  to 
public  prayer,  and  even  these  only  with  regard  to  some  of  the  objects  of 
petition.  Where  were  the  Liturgies  of  those  times?  Had  Forms  of 
Prayer  been  so  indispensably  necessary,  or,  at  least,  so  pre-eminently 
important,  as  our  episcopal  brethren  tell  us  they  are,  and  always  have 
been,  why  did  not  Paul,  or  some  other  of  the  apostles,  furnish  the 
churches  with  Liturgies  written  by  themselves,  and  under  the  immediate 
inspiration  of  the  Holy  Ghost  ?  How  shall  we  account  for  it,  that  instead 
of  sending  Timothy  a  form,  he  only  laid  down  for  him  a  few  general 
words  of  direction?  But  this  is  not  the  only  instance  in  which  the 
apostles  appear  to  have  been  of  a  different  mind  from  some  modern 
churchmen. 


TESTIMONY  OP  SCRIPTURE.  275 

lish  the  prelatical  character  of  Timothy  and  Titus,  is  perfectly 
nugatory.  It  is  all  mere  assumption,  instead  of  proof;  and  were 
it  not  for  the  respectable  character  of  the  author,  would  be  totally 
unworthy  of  reply.  He  has  no  where  proved  that  these  ministers 
went  to  Ephesus  and  Crete  in  a  higher  character  than  that  of 
itinerant  presbyters.  He  has  no  where  proved  that  they  were  the 
fixed  pastors  or  bishops  of  the  churches  which  he  undertakes  to 
assign  to  them.  He  has  no  where  proved  that  there  were  presby- 
ters in  those  churches,  before  these  evangelists  were  sent  thither, 
who  might,  on  Presbyterian  principles,  have  performed  the  rite  of 
ordination,  without  the  trouble  and  expense  of  sending  special 
missionaries  to  so  great  a  distance.  He  has  no  where  proved  that 
Timothy  or  Titus  was,  either  of  them,  the  sole  ordainer  in  any 
case.  He  has  no  where,  in  short,  established  a  single  fact  concern- 
ing either  of  them,  which  has  the  least  appearance  of  prelatical  supe- 
riority. Even  if  he  could  establish  these  facts,  his  point  would  not 
be  gained.  He  would,  after  all,  be  obliged  to  show,  that  they  took 
place  in  a  regular  and  established  and  not  in  a  new  and  unsettled 
state  of  the  church ;  and  that  they  were  intended  to  serve,  in  every 
minute  particular,  as  precedents.  But  he  has  not  proved,  and 
cannot  prove,  either  the  one  or  the  other.  I  therefore  repeat,  with 
increased  confidence,  the  closing  sentence  of  the  discussion  of  this 
subject  in  my  former  letters.  "  The  argument  which  ourepisco- 
"  pal  brethren  derive  from  Timothy  and  Titus  is  absolutely  worth 
"  nothing ;  and  after  all  the  changes  that  may  be  rung  upon  it, 
"  and  all  the  decorations  with  which  it  may  be  exhibited,  it 
"  amounts  only  to  a  gratuitous  assumption  of  the  whole  point  in 
"  dispute." 

As  to  the  testimony  adduced  from  the  fathers,  to  establish  the 
prelatical  character  of  Timothy  and  Titus,  it  is  more,  much  more, 
suited,  in  the  view  of  all  intelligent  readers,  to  discredit  than  to  aid 
the  episcopal  cause.  „  I  had  quoted  from  Dr.  Whitby,  an  eminent 
episcopal  divine,  the  following  passage. — "  The  great  controversy 
"  concerning  this,  and  the  epistle  to  Timothy  is,  whether  Timothy 
<c  and  Titus  were  indeed  made  bishops,  the  one  of  Ephesus,  and 
"  the  pro-consular  Asia  ;  the  other  of  Crete.  Now  of  this  matter 
"  I  confess  I  can  find  nothing  in  any  writer  of  the  Jirst  three  cen- 
"  turies,  nor  any  intimation  that  they  bore  that  name/'  Dr. 
JBowden  virtually  concurs  in  this  statement  of  Dr.  Whitby  ;  for 


276  LETTER  111. 

though  he  speaks  with  much  confidence  of  the  testimony  of  the 
fathers  on  this  point,  yet  the  first  authentic  witness,*  among  the 
fathers,  whom  he  brings  forward  is  Eusebius,  who  says,  "  it  is 
related  that  Timothy  was  the  first  bishop  of  Ephesus."  Now 
Eusebius  does  indeed  say  so  ;  but  he  also  declares,  generally,  that 
his  sources  of  information  were  exceedingly  scanty  and  uncertain; 
and,  in  particular,  he  confesses,  that  it  was  not  easy  to  say,  who 
were  left  bishops  of  the  several  churches,  by  the  apostles,  except  so 
far  as  might  be  gathered  from  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  and  the 
Epistles  of  Paul  Ecde.s.  Hist.  Lib.  in.  Cap.  4.  Here,  then,  is 
the  sum  of  the  evidence  from  llie  fathers,  as  to  this  point.  Eusebius 
stands  first  on  the  list.  He  quotes  as  his  authority,  the  New 
Testament.  All  the  others,  as  Ambrose,  Epiphanius,  Jerome, 
Chrysostom,  &c.  follow  Eusebius.  The  fathers,  then,  virtually 
confess  that  they  knew  no  more  of  the  matter  than  we  do  ;  and  of 
course  their  whole  testimony  is,  to  us,  perfectly  worthless. 

But  some  of  the  fathers  speak  on  this  subject  in  a  manner  that  is 
somewhat  unfortunate  for  the  episcopal  cause.  On  the  one  hand, 
several  of  them  represent  Timothy  and  Titus,  and  especially  the 
former,  as  more  than  a  single  bishop,  as  bearing  the -dignity  of  an 
archbishop  or  metropolitan.  Now,  as  Dr.  Bowden,  and  his  friends, 
acknowledge  that  there  were  no  archbishops  in  the  apostle's  days, 
they  must  of  course  consider  this  testimony  as  false  and  worthless. 
On  the  other  hand,  one  of  the  fathers  quoted  by  Dr.  Bowden, 
(Chrysostom)  in  his  Commentary  on  Titus  i.  5.  speaks  of  that 
evangelist  in  the  following  clear  and  decisive  terms  :  "  That  thou 
tl  mayest  ordain  elders,  says  the  apostle  :  he  means  bishops.  In 
"  every  city,  says  he,  for  he  would  not  have  the  whole  Island 
'*  committed  to  one  man,  but  that  every  one  should  have  and  mind 
w  his  own  proper  cure ;  for  so  he  knew  the  labour  would  be  easier 

*  Dr.  Bowden  does,  indeed,  adduce  one  witness,  whom  he  places 
before  Eusebius,  in  the  following  words.  "  From  a  fragment  of  a  treatise 
'*  by  Polycrates,  bishop  ofEphesus,  towards  the  close  of  the  second  centu- 
"  ry.  This  fragment  is  preserved  in  Photius's  Bibliotheca,  and  quoted  by 
"archbishop  Usher  in  his  discourse  on  episcopacy.  In  that  fragment  it 
"  is  said,  that  *  Timothy  was  ordained  bishop  of  Ephesus  by  the  great 
"  Paul'  "  Nobody  has  ever  seen  the  original  work  of  Poly  crates ,-  but 
Photius,  who  was  patriarch  of  Constantinople,  towards  the  close  of  the 
ninth  century,  has  preserved,  it  seems,  a  fragment  of  it  in  his  Bibliotheca. 


TESTIMONY  OF  SCRIPTURE.  277 

"  to  him,  and  the  people  to  be  governed  would  have  more  care 
"  taken  of  them  ;  since  their  teacher  would  not  run  about  to  go- 
«  vern  many  churches  ;  but  would  attend  to  the  ruling  of  one  only, 
"  and  so  would  keep  it  in  good  order." 

Here,  Chrysostom  expressly  declares,  that  Titus  was  not  the 
bishop  of  all  Crete;  that  he  was  sent,  not  to  take  the  fixed  pasto- 
ral charge  of  the  Island,  but  to  place  its  churches  under  a  perma- 
nent and  regular  ministry ;  that  the  apostolic  direction  was  to  set 
a  bishop  over  every  particular  church  :  and  that  a  single  church 
was  quite  enough  for  a  scriptural  bishop  to  have  under  his  care.  In 
short,  the  whole  passage  is  so  entirely  Presbyterian  in  its  strain, 
that  its  force  in  our  favour  can  be  overlooked  by  none. 

But  one  of  the  most  extraordinary  parts  of  Dr.  Bowden's  work, 
is  that  in  which  he  undertakes  to  answer  my  argument  drawn  from 
the  constitution  of  the  Jewish  synagogue.  1  had  shown,  in  my 
second  letter,  that  the  synagogue  worship  universally  prevailed 
among  the  Jews,  at  the  time  of  our  Lord's  coming  in  the  flesh  ;  that 
the  apostles,  in  organizing  Christian  churches,  willing  to  conform 
as  far  as  possible,  to  the  habits  and  prejudices  of  the  first  converts 
to  Christianity,  who  were  Jews,  deviated  as  little  as  circumstances 
would  admit  from  the  synagogue  model ;  that  this  model  was 
Presbyterian  in  its  form  :  and  that  the  nature  of  the  public  service, 
the  names  and  duties  of  church  officers,  the  manner  of  ordination, 
&c.  were  all  transferred  from  the  synagogue  to  the  church.  It  is 
not  easy  to  exhibit  this  argument  in  its  native  strong  light  before 
common  readers,  because  few  have  any  tolerable  acquaintance  with 
Jewish  antiquities.  But  the  more  I  reflect  upon  it,  the  more  deep- 
ly I  am  persuaded,  that,  when  properly  stated  and  understood,  it 
will  be  found  an  argument  of  the  most  conclusive  and  satisfactory 
kind. 

Dr.  Bowden,  however,  views  it  as  wholly  destitute  of  force. 
This,  indeed,  might  be  expected  from  a  man,  who,  as  we  have  late- 
ly seen,  is  hardy  enough  to  dissent  from  a  direct  statement  of  the 
Apostle  Paul.  But  let  us  examine  his  objection  and  his  rea- 
sonings. 

In  the  first  place,  Dr.  B.  insists  that  the  Christian  church  could 
not  have  been  organized  after  the  model  of  the  Jewish  synagogue, 
because  the  synagogue  did  not,  properly  speaking,  partake  of  the 
character  of  the  church  j  being  a  mere  human  institution,  and 


278  LETTER  III. 

resting  on  no  other  basis  than  human  authority.  He  asserts,  that 
my  not  adverting  to  this  fact,  is  the  foundation  of  my  whole  error ; 
and  that  the  due  consideration  of  it  will  completely  destroy  my 
argument.  I  trust,  however,  that  a  few  remarks  will  be  sufficient 
to  show  that  the  want  of  due  consideration  is  on  his  part,  and  not 
on  mine ;  and  that  the  argument  stands  firm  and  unanswerable, 
notwithstanding  all  he  has  said. 

When  Dr.  Bowden  so  confidently  asserts  that  the  synagogue 
was  a  mere  human  institution  ;  that  no  Jew  was  under  any  obli- 
gation to  attend  upon  its  service  ;  and  that,  being  a  mere  creature 
of  man,  every  one  was  at  liberty,  in  the  sight  of  God,  to  treat  it 
as  he  pleased;  when  he  makes  these  assertions,  he  ought  to  know 
that  he  is  speaking  wholly  without  authority.  Who  told  the  learn- 
ed professor  all  these  things  ?  If  he  can  inform  us  when  synagogues 
were  instituted,  by  whom,  and  from  what  source  the  suggestion  or 
command  to  establish  them  came,  he  will  render  a  piece  of  service 
to  ecclesiastical  history,  for  which  all  its  students  will  have  reason 
to  thank  him :  for,  truly,  no  other  person  has  ever  yet  been  able 
with  any  degree  of  certainty  to  give  us  this  information.  But  if  he 
cannot  give  a  decisive  answer  to  any  one  of  these  questions,  how 
could  he  dare  to  speak  on  the  subject  in  the  manner  that  he  has 
ventured  to  do  r  It  is  certain  that  synagogues  are  mentioned  in  the 
78th  Psalm,  and  that  they  are  there  called  synagogues  of  God.  It 
is  certain  that  putting  an  offender  out  of  the  synagogue,  was  a  well 
known  mode  of  speaking  among  the  Jews,  to  express  excommuni- 
cation from  the  church ;  and  it  is  equally  certain,  that  our  Lord 
and  his  apostles  attended  the  synagogue  service  every  sabbath  day, 
and  thus  gave  it  their  decided  sanction.  Now,  all  these  taken 
together,  look,  to  say  the  least,  like  something  more  than  mere 
human  contrivance.  If,  as  some  suppose,  the  synagogue  was  in- 
stituted by  Ezra,  after  the  Babylonish  captivity,  and  none,  that  I 
know,  ascribe  to  it  a  later,  or  less  respectable  origin,  even  this 
supposition  will  not  aid  Dr.  Bowden,  or  countenance  his  reason- 
ing. Was  not  Ezra  an  inspired  man  ?  And  will  not,  of  course, 
an  institution  of  his,  rest  on  substantially  the  same  ground,  as  to 
authority,  with  an  institution  established  or  enjoined  by  Peter  or 
Paul? 

But  granting  to  Dr.  Bowden  all  that  he  asks  ;  granting  that  the 
synagogue  was  a  mere  human  institution  ;  that  it  made  no  part  of 


TESTIMONY  OF  SCRIPTURE.  279 

the  Jewish  church,  properly  so  called ;  and  that  no  Jew  was  under 
any  divine  obligation  to  attend  on  its  service ;  what  does  he  gain 
by  the  concession  ?  Nothing.     It  is  so  far  from   destroying  my 
argument,  that  it  does  not  affect  or  even  touch  it.     Dr.  B.  does  not 
deny  that  synagogues  existed,  and  were  in  use,  at  the  time  in  which 
the  apostles  were  called  upon  to  form  their  Jewish  converts  into 
Christian  churches.     How  they  came  into  use,  or  by  what  authori- 
ty they  were  introduced  are  questions  foreign  from  the  present 
inquiry.  Again,  Dr.  B,  does  not  deny,  that  every  particular  syna- 
gogue had  three  classes  of  officers,  a  bishop,  elders,  and  deacons  ; 
that  the  peculiar  office  of  the  bishop,  (or  as  he  was  sometimes  call- 
ed, the  angel  of  the  church^)  was  to  preside  in  the  public  service, 
and  lead  the  devotions  of  the  people  5  that  the  principal  duty  of  the 
bench  of  elders,  was  to  assist  in  ruling  the  synagogue,  and  admi- 
nistering its  discipline  ;*  and  that  the  deacons,  though  sometimes 
called  to  the  performance  of  other  services,   were  particularly 
charged  with  collecting  and  distributing  alms  for  the  poor.    Dr.  B. 
does  not  deny,  that  ordination  by  the  imposition  of  hands  was 
always  employed  in  constituting  the  synagogue  ministry.     And 
finally,  he    does  not  deny,  that  reading   the   sacred  scriptures 
expounding  them,  and  offering  up  public  prayers,  formed  the  ordi- 
nary service  of  the  synagogue.     He  does  not  deny  that  all  these 
were  found  in  the  synagogue,  and  that  none  of  them  were  found  in 
the  temple  service.     This  is  conceding  all  that  I  desire,  or  that  my 
argument  demands.     I  care  not  what  doubts  may  be  started  con- 
cerning the  date  or  the  origin  of  these  institutions.  All  that  I  have 
to  do  with,  are  the  great  and  indubitable  facts,  that  they  were  in 
use  among  the  Jews ;  and  that  in  organizing  the  Christian  church, 
the  apostles,  acting  in  the  name,  and  under  the  authority  of  Christ, 
appointed  for  the  church  the  same  classes  of  officers  as  existed  in 
the  synagogue;  gave  them  the  same  names;  assigned  to  them 
similar  duties;  directed  their  ordination  to  be  solemnized  in  the 
same  manner ;  and  prescribed  for  them,  substantially,  the  same 
course  of  public  service.     Can  any  thing  be  more  conclusive  ?  He 
who  can  reject  this  plain  induction  of  facts,  will  find  it  difficult  to  be 
satisfied  with  demonstration  itself. 

*  Dr.  Bowden  explicitly  grants  that  there  was  a  class  of  officers  in  every 
Jewish  synagogue,  similar  to  the  ruling  elders  in  the  Presbyterian  church, 
We  shall  hereafter  see  that  this  is  an  important  concession. 


280  LETTER  III. 

You  will  now  be  able,  my  brethren,  to  judge  between  Dr.  Bow* 
den  and  me,  with  respect  to  this  point ;  or  rather  between  the 
Presbyterian  and  episcopal  doctrine.  We  say  that  the  Christian 
church  was  formed  by  the  apostles  after  the  model  of  the  Jewish 
synagogue  ;  while  those  who  contend  for  the  divine  right  of 
diocesan  episcopacy,  assert,  that  it  was  organized,  after  the  model 
of  the  temple  service.  We  produce  proof.  We  show  that  the 
organization  and  service  of  the  Christian  church,  resemble  the 
temple  in  scarcely  any  thing  ;  while  they  resemble  the  synagogue 
in  almost  every  thing.  We  show  that  there  were  bishops,  elders, 
and  deacons  in  the  synagogue;  but  not  in  the  temple  :  That  there 
was  ordination  by  the  imposition  of  hands  in  the  synagogue,  but 
no  ordination  at  all  in  the  temple:  That  there  were  reading  the 
scriptures,  expounding  them,  and  public  prayers,  every  sabbath 
day,  in  the  synagogue;  while  the  body  of  the  people*  went  up  to 
the  temple  only  three  times  a  year,  and  even  then  to  attend  on  a 
very  different  service  :  That  in  the  synagogue,  there  was  a  system 
established,  which  included  a  weekly  provision  not  only  for  the 
instruction  and  devotions  of  the  people,  but  also  for  the  maintenance 
of  discipline,  and  the  care  of  the  poor;  while  scarcely  any  thing  of 
this  kind  was  to  be  found  in  the  temple.  Now,  in  all  these  respects, 
and  in  many  more  which  might  be  mentioned,  the  Christian 
church  followed  the  synagogue,  and  departed  from  the  temple. 
Could  we  trace  a  resemblance  in  one  or  a  few  points,  it  might  be 
considered  as  accidental ;  but  the  resemblance  is  so  close,  so  strik- 
ing, and  extends  to  so  many  particulars,  as  to  arrest  the  attention 
of  the  most  careless  inquirer.  It  was,  indeed,  notoriously  so  great 
in  the  early  ages,  that  the  heathen  frequently  suspected  and  charged 
Christian  churches,  with  being  Jewish  synagogues  in  disguise.  But 
with  respect  to  the  temple  service,  this  resemblance  is,  in  almost 
every  particular,  entirely  wanting.  I  ask,  then,  after  which  of  these 
models  was  the  Christian  church  formed  ?  The  answer  is  so  plain, 
that  I  should  insult  your  understandings,  by  supposing  it  possible 
for  you  to  doubt. 

*  Only  the  males,  it  will  be  observed,  were  required  to  go  up  to  Jeru- 
salem, three  times  a  year.  If,  therefore,  Dr.  Sowden's  position,  that 
the  synagogue  service  was  a  mere  human  invention,  be  admitted,  then  it 
will  follow,  that  there  was  no  public  religious  service  of  divine  institution 
in  which  the  Jewish  females  could  ever  join  !  Is  this  probable  ? 


TESTIMONY  OF  SCRIPTURE.  281 

It  is  vain  to  object  as  Dr.  Bowden  does,  that  the  resemblance 
between  the  Christian  church  and  the  synagogue  is  not  absolutely 
perfect  as  to  every  minute  parliculur.  This  does  not  affect  the 
general  principle.  He  objects,  for  instance,  that  neither  baptism 
nor  the  Lord's  Supper  is  to  be  found  in  the  synagogue  service.  Be 
it  so.  But  were  they  to  be  found  in  the  temple  service,  for  the 
resemblance  of  which  to  the  Christian  church,  he  so  ardently  con- 
tends ?  No.  Baptism,  among  the  Jews  had  no  connexion  with 
the  temple;  and  with  respect  to  the  Passover,  it  was  instituted 
long  before  the  temple  had  a  being  ;  and  has  been  continued  near 
eighteen  hundred  years  since  it  was  no  more. 

But  Dr.  Bowden  is  incorrect  in  his  premises,  as  well  as  in  his 
conclusion.  Both  baptism  and  the  passover,  though  they  had  no 
connexion  with  the  temple,  were  connected  with  the  synagogue. 
The  ministers  of  the  synagogue  admitted  proselytes  to  their  com- 
munion by  baptising  parents  and  children.  To  constitute  a  regular 
Jewish  baptism,  it  was  necessary  that  three  elders  of  the  synagogue 
should  be  present.  The  synagogue  officers  also  determined  the 
question  of  right  who  should  eat  the  passover.  In  fact,  the  syna- 
gogue officers  did  admit  proselytes  into  the  Jewish  church,  and 
excommunicate  offenders.  They  had  the  care  of  the  whole  disci- 
pline from  the  time  of  Ezra.  The  priests,  it  is  true,  had  a  voice  ; 
but  it  was  as  members  of  the  Sanhedrim,  and  not  as  officers  of  the 
temple. 

As  to  Dr.  B.?s  objection,  that  the  organization  of  the  Christian 
church  cannot  resemble  that  of  the  synagogue,  because  the  bishop 
of  the  synagogue  had  only  the  charge  of  a  single  congregation, 
whereas  he  is  persuaded  that  the  Christian  bishop  has  a  charge 
extending  over  many  congregations — I  can  only  say,  that  while  it 
includes  a  most  ludicrous  begging  of  the  question  in  debate,  it 
carries  with  it  also  a  most  important  concession,  which  I  take  for 
granted  the  Dr.  was  not  aware  of;  but  which  is  fatal  to  his  cause. 
He  grants  that  the  bishop  of  the  synagogue,  (and  of  course,  the 
only  kind  of  bishop  to  which  the  first  converts  to  Christianity  had 
been  accustomed,)  was  the  pastor,  or  presiding  officer,  over  a 
single  congregation.  Now  if  the  model  of  the  synagogue,  and 
not  of  the  temple,  was  adopted  by  the  apostles,  it  affords  a  strong 
presumption  that  the  scriptural  bishop  was,  what  we  suppose  him 
to  have  been,  the  pastor  of  a  single  church.  In  fact,  Dr.  B.  fully 
2  N 


282  LETTER  III. 

concedes  this :  for,  in  another  part  of  his  work,  he  frankly  ac- 
knowledges that,  in  the  days  of  the  apostles,  the  title  of  bishop  was 
currently  applied  to  the  pastors  of  particular  churches.  There  is 
nothing  now  wanting,  even  on  Dr.  B.?s  own  principles,  to  render 
the  resemblance  between  the  synagogue  and  the  church  complete, 
so  far  as  the  officers  of  each  are  concerned,  but  to  find  ruling 
elders  in  the  primitive  church.  But  a  bench  of  ruling  elders,  cor- 
responding with  those  who  bear  that  name  in  our  church,  he 
acknowledges  belonged  to  the  synagogue ;  and  in  the  next  letter  I 
hope  to  prove,  to  the  satisfaction  of  every  impartial  mind,  that  such 
officers  were  instituted  in  the  primitive  church. 

The  great  principle  for  which  I  am  contending,  viz.  that  the 
Christian  church  was  organized  on  the  model  of  the  synagogue, 
has  been  received  and  maintained  by  a  number  of  the  ablest 
divines  that  ever  wrote  on  the  subject,  both  Presbyterian  and 
Episcopal.  But  all  testimonies  adduced  from  the  former  will  be 
viewed,  by  Dr.  Bowden  and  his  friends,  with  a  suspicious  eye.  I 
shall,  therefore,  pass  by  all  that  has  been  said  on  this  subject,  by 
the  incomparably  learned  and  able  Professor  Vitringa,  of  Holland^ 
and  by  that  prodigy  of  erudition,  the  celebrated  Selden,  of  Eng- 
land— because  they  were  Presbyterians.*  But  I  hope  my  oppo- 
nents in  this  controversy  will  pay  some  respect  to  the  following 
quotations  from  some  of  the  most  respectable  writers  in  their  own 
church,  who  concede  all  that  I  ask  or  desire. 

The  first  quotation  shall  be  taken  from  Bishop  Burnet. 
"  Among  the  Jews,  (says  he)  he  who  was  the  chief  of  the  Syna- 
"  g°guei  was  called  Chazan  Hakeneselh,  i.  e.  the  bishop  of  the 
"  congregation,  and  Sheliach  Tsibbor,  the  angel  of  the  church. 
"  And  the  Christian  church  being  modelled  as  near  the  form  of 
"  the  synagogue  as  they  could  be ;  as  they  retained  many  of  the 
"  rites,  so  the.  form  of  the  government  was  continued,  and  the 
"  names  remained  the  same."  And  again,  "  In  the  synagogues 
"  there  was,  first,  one  who  was  called  the  bishop  of  the  congrega- 
"  tion;  next  the  three  orderers  and  judges  of  every  thing  about  the 
"  synagogue ;  who  were  called  Tsekenim,  and  by  the  Greeks 
"  tffss&fsgoi,  or  ysgovrss,  that  is,  elders.  These  ordered  and 

*  I  call  Selden  a  Presbyterian,  because  though  not  a  thorough  advocate 
for  Presbyterianism,  strictly  so  called,  he  was  decidedly  anti-episcopal. 


TESTIMONY  OF  SCRIPTURE.  283 

ee  determined  every  thing  that  concerned  the  synagogue,  or  the 
«  persons  in  it.  Next  them  were  the  three  Parnassin  or  deacons, 
"  whose  charge  was  to  gather  the  collections  or  the  rich,  and  dis- 
u  tribute  them  to  the  poor."* 

The  next  quotation  shall  be  taken  from  Dr.  Lightfoot,  another 
Episcopal  divine,  not  less  distinguished  for  his  learning  and  talents. 
"  The  apostle,"  (says  he)  "  calleth  the  minister,  Episcopus  (or 
"  bishop}  from  the  common  and  known  title  of  the  Chazan  or 
"  Overseer  in  the  Synagogue."  And  again,  "  Besides  these, 
"  there  was  the  public  minister  of  the  synagogue,  who  prayed 
"  publicly,  and  took  care  about  reading  the  law,  and  sometimes 
"  preached,  if  there  were  not  some  other  to  discharge  this  office. 
"  This  person  was  called  Sheliach  Tsibbor,  the  angel  of  the 
u  churchy  and  Chazan  Hakejieseth  the  Chazan  or  bishop  of  the 
"  Congregation.  The  Aruch  gives  the  reason  of  the  name.  The 
"  Chazan,  says  he,  is  Sheliach  Tsibbor,  the  angel  of  the  church, 
"  (or  the  public  minister,)  and  the  Targum  renders  the  word  Roveh 
"  by  the  word  Hose,  one  that  oversees.  For  it  is  incumbent  on 
"  him  to  oversee  how  the  reader  reads,  and  whom  he  may  call  out 
"  to  read  in  the  law.  The  public  minister  of  the  synagogue  him- 
u  self  read  not  the  law  publicly,  but  every  Sabbath  he  called  out 
"  seven  of  the  Synagogue  (on  other  days  fewer)  whom  he  judged 
tc  fit  to  read.  He  stood  by  him  that  read,  with  great  care  observ- 
"  ing  that  he  read  nothing  either  falsely,  or  improperly,  and  calling 
"  him  back,  and  correcting  him,  if  he  had  failed  in  any  thing. 
"  And  hence  he  was  called  Chazan,  that  is,  E<7rt£xotfo£,  i.  e.  bishop 
et  or  overseer.  Certainly  the  signification  of  the  word  bishop  and 
"  angel  of  the  church,  had  been  determined  with  less  noise,  if 
"  recourse  had  been  had  to  the  proper  fountains,  and  men  had  not 
t(  vainly  disputed  about  the  signification  of  words  taken  I  know 
"  not  whence.  The  service  and  worship  of  the  temple  being 
"  abolished,  as  being  ceremonial,  God  transplanted  the  worship 
"  and  public  adoration  of  God  used  in  the  synagogues,  which  was 
"  moral,  into  the  Christian  church  ;  viz.  the  public  ministry,  pub- 
"  lie  prayers,  reading  God's  word,  and  preaching,  &c.  Hence  the 
"  names  of  the  ministers  of  the  Gospel  were  the  very  same,  the 
"  angel  of  the  church,  the  bishop  which  belonged  to  the  ministers 

*  Observations  on  the  i.  Can.  p.  2.  and  u.  Can.  p.  83. 


284  LETTER  III. 

"  in  the  synagogues.  There  were  also  three  deacons^  or  a  /mowers, 
"  on  whom  was  the  care  of  the  poor."* 

The  celebrated  Grotius^  whose  great  learning  and  talents  will 
be  considered  by  all  as  giving  much  weight  to  his  opinion  on  any 
subject,  is  full  and  decided  in  maintaining  that  the  primitive  church 
was  formed  after  the  model  of  the  synagogue.  Many  passages 
might  be  quoted  from  his  writings,  in  which  this  opinion  is  directly 
asserted.  The  following  may  suffice.  In  his  commentary  on 
Acts  xr.  30.  he  expresses  himself  thus  :  "  The  whole  polity 
"  (regimen)  of  the  Christian  church  was  conformed  to  the  pattern 
"  of  the  synagogue"  And  in  his  commentary  on  1  Tim.  v.  17. 
he  has  the  following  passage.  "  Formerly,  in  large  cities,  as  there 
"  were  many  synagogues,  so  there  were  also  many  churches,  or 
"  separate  meetings  of  Christians.  And  every  particular  church 
"  had  its  own  president,  or  bishop,  who  instructed  the  people,  and 
fi  ordained  presbyters.  In  Alexandria  ALONE  it  was  the  custom 
"  to  have  but  one  president  or  bishop,  for  the  whole  city,  who 
"  distributed  presbyters  through  the  city  for  the  purpose  of 
"  instructing  the  people  ;  as  we  are  taught  by  Sozomen.  i.  14." 

The  next  point  in  Dr.  Bowden's  exhibition  of  scriptural  testi- 
mony, which  demands  attention,  is  the  alleged  episcopal  character 
of  James  over  the  church  of  Jerusalem*  This  argument  in  favour 
of  prelacy,  was  wholly  omitted  in  my  former  volume,  not  because 
there  was  any  difficulty  in  answering  it,  but  because  it  really 
appeared  to  me  too  frivolous  to  be  seriously  considered.  Dr. 
Boicden,  however,  having  no  arguments  to  spare,  has  brought  it 
forward  with  much  confidence,  and  seems  to  consider  it,  like  every 
other  on  the  episcopal  side,  as  perfectly  conclusive.  Indeed  he 
appears  to  regard  me  as  guilty  of  injustice  to  the  episcopal  cause 
in  passing  it  over  in  silence. 

But  how  does  it  appear,  from  the  New  Testament,  that  James 
was  bishop  of  Jerusalem  ?  From  such  considerations,  the  advocates 
of  prelacy  tell  us,  as  the  following:  1.  That  in  the  synod  at 

*  See  Lightfoot's  Works,  Vol.  I.  p.  308.  and  II.  p.  133. 

I  Though  Grotius  was  bred  a  Presbyterian  ;  yet  being-  soured  by  what 
he  considered  as  ill  treatment  from  the  church  of  Holland,  he  discovered 
a  strong  predilection  for  episcopacy.  When  this  is  considered  the 
declarations  above  cited,  carry  with  them  peculiar  force. 


TESTIMONY  OF  SCRIPTURE.  285 

Jerusalem  (Acts  xv.)  he  spoke  last,  and  expressed  himself  thus — 
Wherefore  my  sentence  is,  &c.     2.  That  Peter,  after  his  release 
from  prison,  said  to  certain  persons — Go  show  these  things  unto 
James  and  to  the   brethren.     Acts  xn.   17.     And  3.  That,  in 
Acts  xxi.  17?  18.  it  is  said — And  when  we  were  come  to  Jerusa- 
lem, the  brethren  received  us  gladly.     And  the  day  following 
Paul  went  in  with  us  unto  James  ;  and  all  the  elders  were  pre- 
sent.    On  these  passages  Dr.  Bowden  asks  :   "  Why  did  Peter 
direct  certain  things  to   be  communicated  particularly  to  James, 
if  he  were  not  the  bishop  ?  What  induced  Paul  and  his  company 
to  go  in  unto  James  in  particular  5  and  how  came  all  the  elders  to 
be  with  James,  unless  he  were  the   bishop  ?  On  the  supposition 
that  he  bore  this  character  every  thing  is  natural ;  but  on  any  other 
supposition  these  facts  must  appear  very  strange.     I  see  enough  to 
convince  me  that  he  was  the  head  of  all  the   presbyters  and  con- 
gregations in  Jerusalem.     For  I  find  him  constantly  distinguished 
from  his  clergy.     He  is  always  mentioned  first,  and  the  name  of 
no  other  presbyter,  however  eminent  he  may  have  been,  is  ever 
given.     He  is  mentioned  with  marked  respect  on  various  occa- 
sions," &c.  &c.  i.  345—352. 

This  argument,  when  stripped  of  all  its  decorations,  stands  thus : 
James  was  the  last  person  who  spake  in  the  synod  ;  therefore  he 
was  superior  to  all  the  apostles  and  others  present !  Peter  request- 
ed an  account  of  his  release  from  prison  to  be  sent  to  James  ; 
therefore  James  was  a  diocesan  bishop  /  Paul  and  his  company 
went  to  the  house  of  James  in  Jerusalem,  and  there  found  the 
elders  convened  ;  therefore  James  was  their  ecclesiastical  gover- 
nor ! 

Now,  in  the  name  of  common  sense,  what  connexion  is  there  in 
this  case,  between  the  premises  and  the  conclusion  ?  Are  no  cler- 
gymen ever  treated  with  "pointed  respect,"  unless  they  are 
diocesan  bishops  ?  Do  no  clerical  meetings  ever  take  place  in  the 
houses  of  any  other  class  of  ministers  than  diocesan  bishops  ? 
Cannot  messages  of  a  public  nature  be  sent  to  individual  ministers 
of  the  gospel,  without  supposing  them  to  be  prelates?  Suppose  a 
number  of  Presbyterian  ministers  had  an  important  communica- 
tion to  make  to  the  clergy  of  a  certain  city,  would  it  be  inconsistent 
with  their  doctrine  of  parity  to  address  this  communication  to  a 
particular  individual,  most  distinguished  for  his  age,  talents,  piety, 


286  LETTER  III. 

and  influence,  to  be  by  him  imparted  to  the  rest  of  his  brethren  ? 
Nay,  is  not  this,  in  all  Presbyterian,  as  well  as  other  countries, 
the  ordinary  method  of  proceeding  ?  When  the  clergy  of  any  town 
or  district  convene  for  mutual  consultation,  does  their  assembling 
in  the  house  of  some  aged  and  venerable  brother  in  the  ministry 
constitute  that  brother  their  bishop,  in  the  episcopal  sense  of  the 
word  ?  To  propose  questions  of  this  kind  seriously  is  little  short  of 
an  insult  to  the  understanding  of  the  reader.  Do  not  facts  of  the 
very  kind  related  of  James,  happen  every  day  to  Presbyterian 
ministers  ?  When  gentlemen  who  would  be  thought  to  argue,  and 
not  to  trifle,  condescend  to  amuse  their  readers  with  representations 
of  this  kind,  under  the  garb  of  reasoning,  it  is  really  difficult  to 
answer  them  in  the  language  of  respect  or  gravity. 

But  the  fathers,  it  seems,  assert  that  James  was  bishop  of 
Jerusalem.  Admitting  this  fact;  and  admitting,  also,  that  there 
were  no  circumstances  tending  to  invalidate  their  testimony  ;  to 
what  does  it  amount  ?  Why,  simply,  that  James  was  one  of  the 
clergy,  perhaps  the  senior  clergyman  of  the  church  of  Jerusalem, 
and  probably  the  most  conspicuous  and  eminent  of  them  all.  For 
let  it  never  be  forgotten  that  our  episcopal  brethren  themselves 
acknowledge,  that  the  title  of  bishop  was  applied  in  the  apostles' 
days,  and  for  some  time  afterwards,  to  the  pastors  of  single  con- 
gregations, and  of  course  that  this  term  alone  decides  nothing  in 
their  favour.  But  let  us  sift  this  matter  a  little.  Hegesippus  is 
quoted  by  Eusebius  as  relating,  that  "  James,  the  brother  of  our 
Lord,  undertook,  together  with  the  apostles,  the  government  of 
the  church  of  Jerusalem."*  This  is  the  earliest  writer  that  is 
brought  to  testify  directly  on  the  subject;  and  he  declares  that 
James  presided  over  the  church  in  Jerusalem  in  conjunction  with 
the  other  apostles.  He  says,  indeed,  a  little  before,  that  the 
bishoprick  of  Jerusalem  was  given  to  James  by  the  apostles,  but 
when  we  come  to  compare  the  two  passages,  and  to  interpret  the 
one  by  the  other,  the  whole  testimony  of  this  writer  will  be  found 
perfectly  equivocal.  Some  of  the  later  fathers,  also,  following 
Hegesippus,  speak  of  James  as  bishop  of  Jerusalem  ;  but  do  they 
tell  us  in  what  seme  they  employ  this  title  ?  That  the  apostles  and 
primitive  Christians  sometimes  employed  it  in  a  sense  different  from 

*  Eccks.  Hist.  Lib.  it.  Cap.  23. 


TESTIMONY  OF  SCRIPTURE.  287 

that  which  is  adopted  by  our  episcopal  brethren,  is  confessed  on 
all  hands.  And  that  these  early  writers,  when  they  speak  of 
James  as  bishop  of  Jerusalem,  mean  to  say  that  he  was  a  prelate, 
a  bishop,  in  the  modern  and  perverted  sense  of  the  term,  is  what 
we  confidently  call  in  question,  and  what  Dr.  Bowden,  with  all  his 
brethren  to  aid  him,  cannot  prove.  I  know  that  the  learned  pro- 
fessor loses  all  patience  at  intimations  of  this  kind  ;  but  it  is  by  no 
means  the  first  time  that  a  man  has  been  provoked  by  a  demand 
of  proof,  when  he  had  nothing  but  assertion  to  produce. 

But  the  most  wonderful  part  of  the  story  is,  that  Dr.  Bowden 
produces  Calvin  as  a  witness  in  support  of  the  episcopal  dignity 
of  James.  On  this  point  he  speaks  in  the  following  terms :  "  So 
"  evident  is  it,  that  James  was  bishop  of  Jerusalem)  that  even 
"  Calvin  thinks  it  highly  probable  that  he  was  governor  of  that 
"  church.  (  When,  says  Calvin,  the  question  is  concerning  dignity, 
"  it  is  wonderful  James  should  be  preferred  before  Peter.  Perhaps 
"  it  was  because  he  was  prefect  of  the  church  of  Jerusalem.'  In 
"  Gafat.c.  IT.  v.  9.  Calvin  did  not  choose  to  speak  plainer ;  for  that 
"  would  have  been  in  direct  contravention  to  his  ecclesiastical  regi- 
"  men."  i.  p.  346. 

The  moment  I  cast  my  eye  on  this  quotation  from  Calvin,  I 
took  for  granted  that  something  had  been  kept  back,  which,  if 
produced,  would  turn  the  tables  on  the  professor.  And  this  accord- 
ingly proves  to  be  the  case.  The  passage,  as  it  really  stands  in 
Calvin,  is  as  follows  :  "  The  apostle  speaks  of  their  (James, 
"  Cephas,  and  John,}  seeming  to  be  pillars,  not  by  way  of  contempt, 
"  but  he  repeats  a  common  sentiment.  "  Because  from  this  it 
"  follows,  that  what  they  did,  ought  not  to  be  lightly  rejected.  When 
"  the  question  is  concerning  dignity,  it  is  wonderful  that  James 
"  should  be  preferred  to  Peter.  Perhaps  this  was  done  because  he 
"  was  president  of  the  church  of  Jerusalem.  With  respect  to  the 
"  word  pillar,  we  know,  that,  in  the  very  nature  of  things,  those 
"  who  excel  others  in  talents,  in  prudence,  or  in  other  endowments, 
"  must  also  be  superior  in  authority.  In  the  church  of  God  it  is  a 
"  fact,  that  in  proportion  as  any  one  is  strong  in  grace  in  the  same 
"  proportion  is  honour  due  to  him.  It  is  ingratitude,  nay,  it  is 
"  impiety,  not  to  do  homage  to  the  Spirit  of  God  wherever  he 
"  appears  in  his  gifts.  And  further,  as  the  people  of  a  church  can- 
"  not  do  without  a  pastor,  so  each  particular  assembly  of  pastors 


288  LETTER  111. 

tc  stands  in  need  of  some  one  to  be  moderator.  But  let  it  be  always 
"  understood,  that  he  who  is  first  of  all  should  be  as  a  servant 
"  according  to  Matthew  23.  11." 

Where  is  the  testimony  from  Calvin  now  ?  The  truth  is,  the 
whole  passage,  like  tenor  of  all  Calvin 's  writings,  is  decidedly 
anti-prelatical.  That  great  reformer,  as  will  be  more  fully  seen 
hereafter,  believed  in  no  authority  of  one  minister  over  another, 
as  having  existed  in  the  primitive  church,  but  a  moderatorship, 
either  occasional  or  standing,  for  the  maintenance  of  order. 

This  is  not  the  only  instance  in  which  Dr.  Bowden  entirely  per- 
verts the  language  of  Calvin,  and  represents  him  as  delivering 
opinions  directly  opposite  to  those  which  he  really  does  deliver. 
Of  this,  more  in  a  future  letter,  in  which  the  writings  of  Calvin,  so 
far  as  they  relate  to  episcopacy,  will  be  particularly  considered. 
In  tihe  mean  time  I  cannot  forbear  to  notice  a  single  specimen,  so 
gross  and  remarkable,  that  I  could  scarcely  credit  the  testimony  of 
my  own  senses  when  I  found  it  advanced  by  both  my  opponents, 
not  only  with  confidence,  but  even  with  sarcastic  and  reproachful 
exultation,  as  a  great  concession  from  the  reformer  of  Geneva  in 
their  favour. 

In  his  commentary  on  Titus  i.  5.  Calvin  speaks  largely  of  the 
mission  of  that  evangelist  to  the  churches  of  Crete.  Dr.  Bowden 
and  Mr.  How  wish  to  persuade  their  readers,  that,  in  these  remarks, 
he  fairly  gives  up  the  point  that  Titus  was  a  diocesan  bishop,  or 
prelate.  Accordingly  they  both  represent  him  as  saying — "  Hence 
"  we  learn  that  there  was  not  any  equality  among  the  ministers  of 
"  the  church,  but  that  one  was  placed  over  the  rest  in  authority  and 
"  counsel."  On  this  pretended  quotation  from  Calvin,  Mr.  How 
observes,  "  Here  the  divine  institution  of  superior  and  inferior 
"  grades  of  ministers,  is  asserted  in  unqualified  terms."  p.  63.  Dr. 
Bowden  quotes  the  passage  from  Calvin,  exactly  in  the  same  man- 
ner, and  makes  precisely  the  same  use  of  it  with  Mr.  How. 

You  will,  no  doubt,  be  filled  with  astonishment,  my  brethren, 
to  find  that  the  passage  from  which  these  gentlemen  profess  to 
make  this  quotation,  is  in  fact  as  follows :  "  Presbyters,  or  elders, 
"  it  is  well  known,  are  not  so  denominated  on  account  of  their  age, 
"  since  young  men  are  sometimes  chosen  to  this  office,  as  for  in- 
"  stance,  Timothy  ;  but  it  has  ever  been  customary,  in  all  languages, 
"  to  apply  this  title,  as  a  term  of  honour,  to  all  rulers.  And,  as 


TESTIMONY  OF  SCRIPTURE.  289 

«  we  gather  from  the  first  epistle  to  Timothy  that  there  were  two 
«  kinds  of  elders ;  so  here  the  context  shows  that  no  other  than 
"  teaching  elders  are  to  be  understood  ;  that  is,  those  who  were 
«  ordained  to  teach  ;  because  the  same  persons  are  presently  call- 
u  ed  bishops.    It  may  be  objected  that  too  much  power  seems  to 
"  be  given  to  Titus,  when  the  apostle  commands  him  to  appoint 
"  ministers  over  all  the  churches.     This,  it  may  be  said,  is  little 
"less  than  kingly  power;  for,  on  this  plan,  the  right  of  choice  is 
"  taken  away  from  the  particular  churches,  and  the  right  of  judging 
"  in  the  case  from  the  college  of  pastors  ;  and  this  would  be  to 
"  profane  the  whole  of  the  sacred  discipline  of  the  church.     But 
"  the  answer  is  easy.  Every  thing  was  not  intrusted  to  the  will  of 
"  Titus  as  an  individual,  nor  was  he  allowed  to  impose  such  bi- 
"  shops  on  the  churches,  as  he  pleased  :  but  he  was  commanded  to 
"  preside  in  the  elections  as  moderator,  as  it  is  necessary  for  some 
"  one  to  do.     This  is  a  mode  of  speaking  exceedingly  common. 
u  Thus  a  consul,  or  regent,  or  dictator,  is  said  to  create  consuls 
"  because  he  convenes  assemblies  for  the  purpose  of  making  choice 
"  of  them.  So  also  Luke  uses  the  same  mode  of  speaking  concern- 
"  ing  Paul  and  Barnabas  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles;  not  that 
"  they  alone  authoritatively  appointed  pastors  over  the  churches, 
"  without  their  being  tried  or  approved ;  but  they  ordained  suita- 
u  ble  men,  who  had  been  elected  or  chosen  by  the  people     We 
"  learn  also  from  this  place,  that  there  was  not  then  such  an  equali- 
"  ty  among  the  ministers  of  the  church,  but  that  some  one  might 
"preside  in  authority  and  counsel.  This,  however,  was  nothing 
"  like  the  tyrannical  and  unscriptural  prelacy  which  reigns  in  the 
"  papacy.*     The  plan  of  the  apostles  was  extremely  different." 

Here  is  not  only  a  passage  taken  out  of  its  connexion,  and  inter- 
preted in  a  sense  diametrically  opposite  to  the  whole  scope  and 
strain  of  the  writer  ;  but,  what  is  much  worse,  the  passage  itself  is 
mistranslated,  and  made  to  speak  a  language  essentially  different 
from  the  original.  Mr.  How  may  possibly  plead  that  he  never  saw 
the  original ;  that  he  quoted  entirely  on  the  authority  of  some  other 
person.  But  Dr.  Bowden  cannot  make  the  same  plea.  He  inserts 
in  the  margin  the  very  words  which  he  mistranslates  and  perverts! 

*  Here  Calvin  not  only  represents  prelacy  as  a  tyrannical  and  unscrip- 
tural system,  but  evidently  considers  it  as  a  part  of  the  corruptions  of 
popery. 

2  O 


290  LETTER  III. 

What  are  we  to  think  of  such  a  fact  ?  Is  Dr.  B.  unable  to  translate 
a  plain  piece  of  Latin?  or  did  he  design  to  deceive  ?  He  may  choose 
which  alternative  he  pleases. 

Dr.  Bowden  thinks  me  inconsistent  with  myself  in  demanding 
decided  scriptural  warranty  and  in  maintaining  the  sufficiency  of 
Scripture  to  direct  us  on  the  subject  of  ecclesiastical  order;  while, 
at  the  same  time,  I  acknowledge  that  there  are  no  formal  or  expli- 
cit decisions  delivered  on  this  subject,  either  by  Christ  or  his  apos- 
tles. But  where  is  the  inconsistency  here  ?  Do  I  not  maintain  that, 
although  the  scriptures  present  no  formal  or  explicit  decisions  on 
this  subject,  yet  we  find  in  the  New  Testament,  "  a  mode  of 
"  expression,  and  a  number  of  facts,  from  which  we  may,  without 
"  difficulty,  ascertain  the  outlines  of  the  apostolic  plan  of  church 
"  order?"  And  is  not  this  "  scriptural  warrant  ?"  Is  it  not  ude- 
"  tided"  scriptural  warrant,  in  the  estimation  of  all  those  who  con- 
sider the  form  of  the  apostolic  church  as  a  model  intended  for  our 
imitation  ?  This  is  perfectly  clear  to  every  impartial  mind :  with 
others  it  is  vain  to  reason. 

With  respect  to  Dr.  Bowdeji's  open  declaration,  that  the  scrip- 
tures, taken  alone,  are  not  a  sufficient  guide  on  this  subject ;  that 
we  cannot  "  stir  a  step"  in  the  controversy,  to  any  purpose,  without 
the  aid  of  the  fathers ;  and  even  that  we  cannot  establish  the  genu- 
ineness and  authenticity  of  the  scriptures  themselves,  without  the 
writings  of  the  fathers ;  I  can  only  say,  that  I  consider  it  as  a  decla- 
ration equally  unworthy  of  his  character  as  a  divine,  and  as  a  Chris- 
tian. Has  Dr.  Bowden  no  evidence  that  the  scriptures  are  from 
God,  but  what  ^fathers  say  ?  Then  he  is  exceedingly  to  be  pi- 
tied ;  for  his  hope  rests  upon  a  most  precarious  foundation.  I  bless 
God  that  much  better  judges  have  been  of  a  different  opinion.  I 
bless  God  that  the  greatest  ornaments  of  his  own  church,  from 
Cranmer,  Latimer,  and  Ridley,  to  the  present  day,  have  considered 
the  internal  evidence  of  the  scriptures  as  the  strongest,  the  best, 
and  most  precious  of  all.  The  testimony  of  the  fathers,  indeed, 
has  its  use  ;  but  to  place  it  in  the  point  of  light  in  which  Dr.  Bow- 
den does,  and  to  lay  so  much  stress  upon  it  as  he  avows  a  disposi- 
tion to  do,  is  really  extraordinary  conduct  for  a  protestant  minister 
of  the  gospel ! 

The  doctrine  of  our  Confession  of  Fait/t  is  full  and  explicit  on 
this  subject.  "  We  may  be  moved  and  induced  by  the  testimony 


TESTIMONY  OF  SCRIPTURE.  291 

«  of  the  church,  to  an  high  and  reverend  esteem  for  the  Holy  Scrip- 
«  ture  :  And  the  heavenliness  of  the  matter,  the  efficacy  of  the  doc- 
"  trine,  the  majesty  of  the  style,  the  consent  of  all  the  parts,  the 
"  scope  of  the  whole,  the  full  discovery  it  makes  of  the  only  way 
"  of  man's  salvation,  the  many  other  incomparable  excellencies, 
"  and  the  entire  perfection  thereof,  are  arguments  whereby  it  doth 
"  abundantly  evidence  itself  to  be  the  word  of  God.  Yet,  notwith- 
"  standing,  our  full  persuasion  and  assurance  of  the  infallible  truth, 
"  and  divine  authority  thereof,  is  from  the  inward  work  of  the 
"  Holy  Spirit,  bearing  witness,  by  and  with  the  word  in  our  hearts. 
"  The  whole  council  of  God  concerning  all  things  necessary  for 
a  his  own  glory,  man's  salvation,  faith,  and  life,  is  either  expressly 
"  set  down  in  scripture,  or,  by  good  and  necessary  consequence, 
"  may  be  deduced  from  scripture ;  unto  which  nothing,  at  any 
"  time,  is  to  be  added,  whether  by  new  revelations,  or  by  the  spirit 
"  and  traditions  of  men."  chap.  i.  This  is  the  doctrine  of  all  the 
reformed  churches.  The  doctrine  of  the  latter  clause,  is  explicitly 
recognized  in  the  Vlth  article  of  Dr.  Howden's  own  church,  which, 
in  my  opinion,  he  misunderstands  and  perverts.  "  Holy  Scripture 
"  containeth  all  things  necessary  to  salvation  ;  so  that  whatsoever 
"  is  not  read  therein,  nor  may  be  proved  thereby,  is  not  to  be  re- 
"  quired  of  any  man,  that  it  should  be  believed  as  an  article  of  the 
"  faith,  or  be  thought  requisite  or  necessary  to  salvation."  This  is 
the  rock  on  which  we  stand.  As  long  as  we  can  show,  and  while 
the  Bible  lasts  I  am  sure  we  shall  always  be  able  to  show,  that 
Presbyterian  government  was  the  apostolic  model  of  church  order, 
we  may  stand  unmoved  at  all  opposite  testimony,  however  plausi- 
ble in  its  nature,  and  however  confidently  adduced. 


(  292  ) 


LETTER  IV. 


TESTIMONY  IN  FAVOUR  OF  THE  OFFICE  OF  RULING  ELDER. 


CHRISTIAN  BRETHREN, 

IN  several  passages  in  my  former  letters,  1  adverted  to  the  office 
of  ruling  elder,  and  offered  some  considerations  to  show  that  it  was 
instituted  in  the  primitive  church.  Dr.  Bowden,  perceiving  that 
this  position,  if  maintained,  would  prove  fatal  to  his  cause,  has 
endeavoured,  with  all  his  force,  to  drive  me  from  it,  and  to  per- 
suade his  readers,  that  no  such  officer  was  known  in  the  Christian 
church  until  modern  times.  As  this  will  hereafter  appear  to  be  a 
question  of  great  importance,  not  only  on  account  of  the  office 
itself,  but  also  on  account  of  its  close  connexion  with  the  doctrine 
of  ministerial  parity,  I  hope  you  will  pardon  me  for  discussing  it 
more  carefully,  and  at  greater  length  than  I  was  able  to  do  in  my 
former  volume. 

There  is,  independent  of  all  historical  testimony,  strong  presump- 
tive evidence  that  such  an  office  must  have  been  instituted  by  the 
apostles.  There  is  a  demand,  little  short  of  absolute  necessity,  that 
one  or  more  persons,  under  some  name,  to  perform  the  duties  of 
ruling  elders,  should  be  appointed  in  every  well  ordered  congre- 
gation. The  minister,  whether  he  be  called  pastor,  bishop,  rector, 
or  by  whatever  title,  cannot  individually  perform  all  the  duties 
which  are  included  in  maintaining  government  and  discipline  in  the 
church,  as  well  as  ministering  in  the  word  and  sacraments.  He 
cannot  be  every  where,  or  know  every  thing.  He  must  have  a 
number  of  grave,  judicious,  and  pious  persons,  who  shall  , assist 


RULING  ELDERS.  293 

him  with  information  and  counsel ;  whose  official  duty  it  shall  be  to 
aid  him  in  overseeing,  regulating,  and  edifying  the  church.  We  can 
hardly  have  a  better  comment  on  these  remarks,  than  the  practice 
of  those  churches  which  reject  ruling  elders.  Our  episcopal 
brethren  reject  them  ;  but  they  are  obliged  to  have  their  vestry- 
men and  church-wardens,  who  perform  the  duties  belonging  to  such 
elders.  Our  independent  brethren  also  reject  this  class  of  church 
officers ;  but  they  too  are  forced  to  resort  to  a  committee,  who 
attend  to  the  numberless  details  of  parochial  duty,  which  the  minis- 
ters cannot  perform.  They  can  scarcely  take  a  single  step  without 
having  in  fact,  though  not  in  name,  precisely  such  officers  as  we 
recognise  under  the  scriptural  appellation  of  elders*  Now,  is  it 
probable,  is  it  credible,  that  the  apostles,  acting  under  the  inspira- 
tion of  Christ,  the  king  and  head  of  the  church,  should  entirely  over- 
look this  necessity,  and  make  no  provision  for  it  ?  It  is  not  credi- 
ble. We  must,  then,  either  suppose  that  some  such  officers  as  those 
in  question  were  appointed  by  the  apostles,  or  that  means,  acknow- 
ledged by  the  practice  of  all,  to  be  indispensable  in  conducting  the 
affairs  of  the  church,  were  forgotten  or  neglected. 

Again  ;  Dr.  Bowden  acknowledges,  and  with  perfect  correct- 
ness, that  there  were  such  officers  in  the  Jewish  synagogue. 
u  The  elders,"  says  he,  "  of  the  Jewish  synagogue  corresponded 
with  the  lay-elders  of  your  (the  Presbyterian)  church."  Letters, 
Vol.  I.  330.  But  if  the  Christian  church  was  organized  after  the 
model  of  the  synagogue,  a  fact  of  which  there  is  the  fullest  evi- 
dence, then  we  may  presume  that  similar  elders  were  included  in 
this  organization.  This  class  of  officers,  so  familiar  to  every  Jew, 
and  so  indispensable  in  his  eyes  to  the  maintenance  of  ecclesiastical 
government  and  order,  would,  by  no  means,  be  likely  to  be  left 
out,  when  every  other  was  notoriously  retained. 

But  we  have  better  evidence.  The  New  Testament  makes 
express  mention  of  such  elders.  There  is  undoubtedly  a  reference 
to  them  in  1  Timothy,  v.  17.  Let  the  elders  that  rule  well  be 
counted  worthy  of  double  honour,  especially  they  who  labour  in 
the  word  and  doctrine.  .  Every  man  of  plain  good  sense,  who  had 
never  heard  of  any  controversy  on  the  subject,  would  conclude,  on 
reading  this  passage,  that,  when  it  was  written,  there  were  two 
kinds  of  elders,  one  whose  duty  it  was  to  labour  in  the  word  and 
doctrine,  and  another  who  did  not  thus  labour,  but  only  rukd  in 


294  LETTER  IV. 

the  church  ;  the  apostle  says,  elders  that  rule  well  are  worthy  of 
double  honour,  but  ESPECIALLY  those  who  labour  in  the  word  and 
doctrine.  Now  if  we  suppose  that  there  was  only  one  kind  of 
elders  then  in  the  church,  and  that  they  were  all  teachers  or 
labourers  in  the  word,  we  must  make  the  inspired  writer  speak  a 
language  utterly  unworthy  of  his  character.  There  was,  therefore, 
a  class  of  elders  in  the  apostolic  church,  who  did  not  preach,  nor 
administer  sacraments,  but  assisted  in  government.  These,  by 
whatever  name  they  may  be  called,  were  precisely  the  same  with 
those  officers  which  we  denominate  ruling  elders. 

For  this  construction  of  the  passage,  Dr.  Whitaker,  a  zealous 
and  learned  episcopal  divine,  and  professor  of  divinity  in  the 
university  of  Cambridge,  zealously  contends.  And  though  his 
declaration  on  the  subject  was  quoted  in  my  former  letters,  I  can- 
not help  repeating  it  here.  "  By  these  words,"  says  he,  "  the 
"  apostle  evidently  distinguishes  between  the  bishops  and  the 
"  inspectors  of  the  church.  If  all  who  rule  well  be  worthy  of 
"  double  honour,  especially  they  who  labour  in  the  word  and 
"  doctrine,  it  is  plain  there  were  some  who  did  not  so  labour;  for 
"  if  all  had  been  of  this  description,  the  meaning  would  have  been 
"  absurd  ;  but  the  word  especially  points  out  a  difference.  If  I 
"  should  say,  that  all  who  study  well  at  the  university  are  worthy 
"  of  double  honour,  especially  they  who  labour  in  the  study  of 
"  theology,  I  must  either  mean  that  all  do  not -apply  themselves 
"  to  the  study  of  theology,  or  I  should  speak  nonsense.  Where- 
"  fore  I  confess  that  to  be  the  most  genuine  sense  by  which  pastors 
"  and  teachers  are  distinguished  from  those  who  only  govern." 
— Prcelect.  ap.  Didioclav.p.  68 1 .  Equally  to  our  purpose  is  the  opi- 
nion of  that  acute  and  learned  episcopal  divine,  Dr.  Whitby,  in 
his  note  on  this  passage,  which  was  also  in  part  before  quoted. 
"  The  elders  of  the  Jews,"  says  he,  "  were  of  two  sorts ;  1st. 
"  Such  as  governed  in  the  synagogue;  and  2dly.  Such  as  minis- 
u  tered  in  reading  and  expounding  their  scriptures  and  traditions, 
"  and  from  them  pronouncing  what  did  bind  or  loose,  or  what  was 
"  forbidden,  and  what  was  lawful  to  be  done.  For  when,  partly 
"  by  their  captivity,  and  partly  through  increase  and  traffick,  they 
"  were  dispersed  in  considerable  bodies  through  divers  regions  of 
"  the  world,  it  was  necessary  that  they  should  have  governors  or 
"  magistrates,  to  keep  them  in  their  duty,  and  judge  of  criminal 


RULING  ELDERS.  295 

"  causes ;  and  also  rabbins  to  teach  them  the  law,  and  the  tradi- 
"  tions  of  their  fathers.  Thejirst  were  ordained  adjudicandum, 
"  sed  non  ad  docendum  de  licitis  et  vetitis,  i.  e.  to  judge  and 
"  govern,  but  not  to  teach  :  The  second,  ad  docendum,  sed  non  ad 
"judicandum,  i.  e.  to  leach,  but  not  to  judge  or  govern.  And 
"  these  the  apostle  here  declares  to  be  the  most  honourable  and 
"  worthy  of  the  chiefest  reward.  Accordingly,  the  apostle,  reck- 
"  oning  up  the  offices  God  had  appointed  in  the  church,  places 
"  teachers  before  governments.  I  Corin.  XH.  28." 

I  am  aware  that  several  glosses  have  been  adopted  to  set  aside 
the  testimony  of  this  text  in  favour  of  ruling  elders.  To  enumerate 
and  expose  them  would  be  a  waste  of  time  and  patience.  It  is 
sufficient  to  say,  that  none  of  them  possess  any  real  force,  and 
scarcely  any  of  them  even  plausibility.  And  you  will  hereafter 
find,  that,  notwithstanding  all  these  glosses,  the  text  in  question 
has  been  considered  as  conclusive  in  support  of  our  doctrine,  by 
some  of  the  best  judges,  and  by  the  great  body  of  orthodox  Chris- 
tians, from  the  apostles  to  the  present  day. 

The  next  passage  of  scripture  which  aflbrds  a  warrant  for  the 
office  of  ruling  elder  is  to  be  found  in  Romans  xu.  6,  7,  8. 
Having  then  gifts,  differing  according  to  the  grace  given  to  us; 
whether  prophecy,  let  us  prophesy  according  to  the  proportion  of 
faith;  or  ministry,  let  us  wait  on  our  ministering  ;  or  he  that 
leacheth,  on  teaching  ;  or  he  that  exhorteth,  on  exhortation  : 
he  that  giveth,  let  him  do  it  with  simplicity ;  HE  THAT  RULETH, 
with  diligence  ;  he  that  showeth  mercy,  with  cheerfulness.  With 
this  passage  may  be  connected  another,  of  similar  character,  and 
to  be  interpreted  on  the  same  principles.  I  mean  the  following 
from  1  Corinthians  xu.  28.  God  hath  set  some  in  the  church, 
first  apostles,  secondarily  prophets,  thirdly  teachers,  after  that 
miracles,  then  gifts  of  healing,  helps,  GOVERNMENTS,  diversities 
of  tongues.  In  both  these  passages,  there  is  a  reference  to  the 
different  offices  and  gifts  bestowed  on  the  church,  by  her  divine 
king  and  head  ;  in  both  of  them  there  is  a  plain  designation  of  an 
office  for  ruling  or  government,  distinct  from  that  of  teaching, 
and  in  both,  also,  this  office  evidently  has  a  place  assigned  to  it 
beloio  that  of  pastors  and  teachers.  This  office,  by  whatever  name 
it  may  be  called,  and  however  its  character  may  be  disguised  by 


206  LETTER  IV. 

ingenuity,  is,  to  all  intents  and  purposes,  the  same  with  that 
which  Presbyterians  distinguished  by  the  title  of  ruling  elder. 

Let  us  now  proceed  to  inquire  what  the  fathers  say  concerning 
this  class  of  church  officers.  And  here,  for  the  sake  of  presenting 
a  connected  view  of  the  argument,  I  shall  incorporate  a  portion  of 
the  evidence  adduced  in  my  former  letters,  with  such  further  tes- 
timonies as  I  find  to  my  purpose. 

In  the  Gesta  Purgationis  Cazcifiani  et  Felicis,*  we  meet  with 
the  following  enumeration  of  church  officers,  Presbyteri,  Diacones 
et  SenioreSj  i.  e.  "  The  presbyters,  the  deacons  and  elders."  And 
a  little  after  it  is  added — "  Adhibite  conclericos  et  seniores  plebis, 
"  ecclesiasticos  viros,  et  inquirant  diligent er  quce  sint  istce  dissen- 
u  tiones,"  i.  e.  "  call  the  fellow-clergymen,  and  elders  of  the 
K  people,  ecclesiastical  men,  and  let  them  inquire  diligently  what 
"  are  these  dissentions."  In  that  assembly,  likewise,  several  letters 
were  produced  and  read  ;  one  addressed  Clero  et  Senioribus,  i.  e. 
"  to  the  clergyman  and  the  elders ;"  and  another,  Clericis  et 
Senioribus,  i.  e.  "  to  the  clergymen  and  the  elders."  Now  I  ask, 
what  can  this  language  mean  ?  Here  is  a  class  of  men,  expressly 
called  ecclesiastical  men,  or  church  officers,  who  are  styled  elders, 
and  yet  distinguished  from  the  CLERGY,  with  whom,  at  the  same 
time;  they  meet,  and  officially  transact  business.  If  these  be  not 
the  elders  of  whom  we  are  in  search,  we  may  give  up  all  the  rules 
of  evidence. 

Cyprian,  in  his  29th  epistle,  directed  "  To  his  brethren,  the 
presbyters  and  deacons/'  expresses  himself  in  the  following 
terms : 

"  You  are  to  take  notice  that  I  have  ordained  Saturus  a  reader, 
u  and  the  confessor  Oplatus,  a  subdeacon  ;  whom  we  had  all 
"  before  agreed  to  place  in  the  rank  and  degree  next  to  that  of  the 
"  clergy.  Upon  Easter  day,  we  made  one  or  two  trials  of  Saturus, 
"  in  reading,  when  we  were  approving  our  readers  before  the 
u  teaching  presbyters ;  and  then  appointed  Optatus  from  among 
u  the  readers,  to  be  a  teacher  of  the  hearers."  On  this  passage 
the  Rev.  Mr.  Marshall,  the  episcopal  translator  and  commentator 

*  See  these  Gesta,  &c.  preserved  at  the  end  of  Optatus,  by  Albaspi- 
,his  commentator. 


RULING  ELDERS.  297 

of  Cyprian,  remarks—"  It  is  hence,  1  think,  ?pparent,  that  all 
"  presbyters  were  not  teachers,  but  assisted  the  bishop  in  other 
"  parts  of  his  office.  "  And  bishop  Fell,  another  editor  and  com- 
mentator on  Cyprian,  remarks  on  the  same  passage  in  the 
following  words  :  "  Inter  Presbyteros  rectores  et  doctores  olim 
"  distinxisse  videter  divus  Paulus,  1  Tim.  v.  17."  i.  e. "  St.  Paul 
"  appears  to  have  made  a  distinction,  in  ancient  times,  between 
«  teaching  and  ruling  elders,  in  I  Timothy  v.  17."  Here  two 
learned  episcopal  divines  explicitly  acknowledge  the  distinction 
between  teaching  and  ruling  elders,  in  the  primitive  church  ;  and 
one  of  them,  an  eminent  bishop,  not  only  allows  that  Cyprian 
referred  to  this  distinction,  but  also  quotes  as  an  authority  for  it, 
the  principal  text  which  Presbyterians  adduce  for  the  same 
purpose." 

Hilary  (frequently  called  Ambrose)  who  lived  in  the  4th  centu- 
ry, in  his  explication  of  1  Timothy  v.  1.  has  the  following  passage  : 
"  For,  indeed,  among  all  nations,  old  age  is  honourable.     Hence 
"  it  is  that  the  synagogue,  and  afterwards  the  church,  had  elders, 
"  without  whose  counsel  nothing  was  done  in  the  church ;  which 
"  by  what  negligence  it  grew  into  disuse  I  know  not,  unless,  per- 
"  haps,  by  the  sloth,  or  rather  by  the  pride  of  the  teachers,  while 
"  they  alone  wished  to  appear  something."     It  is  scarcely  credible 
to  what  a  miserable  expedient  Dr.  Bowden  resorts  to  set  aside  the 
force  of  this  testimony.     He  insists  upon  it  that  the  pious  father 
only  meant  to  say,  that  "  in   former  times  the  elderly  men  of  the 
"  church  used  to  be  consulted,  which  custom  is  now  laid  aside." 
And  again — "  He  says  nothing  more  than  that  it  was  formerly 
"customary  to  consult  the  aged;  no  doubt  in  difficult  situations 
"  of  the   church,  which  frequently  occurred  in  the    first  three 
t(  centuries,  while  persecution  lasted."     It  is  difficult  to  answer 
suggestions  of  this  kind  in  grave  or  respectful  language.     Can  any 
man  in  his  senses  believe  that  Hilary  only  designed  to  inform  his 
readers  that  in  the  Jewish  synagogues  there  were  persons  who  had 
attained  a  considerable  age  ;  that  this  is  also  the  case  in  the  Chris- 
tian church ;  and  that,  in  difficult  cases,  these  aged  persons  were 
consulted  ?  This  would  have  been  a  sage  remark  indeed  !  Was 
there  ever  a  community,  ecclesiastical  or  civil,  which  did  not  in- 
clude some  aged  persons  *  Or  was  there  ever  a  state  of  society,  or 
an  age  of  the  world,  in  which  the  practice  of  consulting  the  aged 
2  P 


298  LETTER  IV. 

had  fallen  into  disuse?  I  am  really  ashamed  of  such  an  attempt,  on 
the  part  of  a  grave  and  "  aged"  divine,  to  pervert  a  passage  which 
could  scarcely  have  been  made  plainer.  Hilary  says  that, "  in 
"  the  synagogue,  and  afterwards  in  the  church,  there  were  certain 
"  seniors  or  elders,  without  whose  counsel  nothing  was  done  in  the 
"church."  If  this  language  does  not  describe  a  class  of  persons, 
who  held  an  official  station,  and  whose  official  duty  it  was  to  aid  by 
their  counsel  in  the  government  of  the  church,  then  we  may  despair 
of  attaching  any  definite  meaning  to  words.  But  what  decides  the 
question  is,  as  he  further  states,  that  in  the  fourth  century,  this  plan 
of  having  elders,  to  assist  by  their  counsel  in  the  government  of  the 
church,  had  chiefly  grown  into  disuse.  Had  the  Christian  church 
become  so  corrupt,  in  a  little  more  than  three  centuries  from  its 
commencement,  as  to  thrust  all  aged  persons  out  of  its  communion  ? 
Or,  if  the  more  venerable  and  aged  were  suffered  to  remain,  were 
they  never  more  consulted  in  cases  of  difficulty  and  danger  ? 
Besides,  if  there  was  no  intention  to  distinguish  between  teaching 
and  ruling  elders,  why  is  it  said  that  these  seniors  or  elders  were 
laid  aside  "  on  account  of  the  sloth,  or  rather  the  pride  of  the 
"  teachers,  who  alone  wished  to  be  something?"  t  can  very  well 
conceive  that  both  the  pride  and  the  sloth  of  the  teaching  elders, 
should  render  them  willing  to  get  rid  of  a  bench  of  officers,  of 
equal  power  with  themselves  in  the  government  of  the  church,  and 
able  to  control  their  wishes  in  cases  of  discipline ;  but  I  cannot 
conceive  why  either  sloth  or  pride  should  prefer  consulting  the 
young,  rather  than  the  aged,  on  the  affairs  of  the  church.  But 
you  will  scarcely  pardon  me  for  detaining  you  so  long  with  the 
refutation  of  reasonings  so  totally  unworthy  of  notice. 

Augustine,  bishop  of  Hippo,  who  also  lived  in  ihe  fourth  century, 
often  refers  to  this  class  of  officers  in  his  writings.  Thus,  in  his 
work,  Contra  Crescon.  lib.  iii,  cap.  56.  he  speaks  of  Peregrinus, 
Presbyter,  et  Seniores  Musticance,  regionis,  i.  e.  "  Peregrine,  the 
"  presbyter,  and  the  elders  of  the  Mustacan  district.7'  And  again, 
he  addresses  one  of  his  epistles  to  his  church  at  Hippo,  \epist.  137,] 
Dilectissimis  fratribus,  Clero,  Senioribus  et  universe  plebi 
ecclesice  Hipponensis.  i.  e.  "  To  the  beloved  brethren,  the 
clergyman,  the  elders,  and  all  the  people  of  the  church  at  Hippo." 
There  were  some  elders,  then,  in  the  days  of  Augustine,  who  were 
not  clergymen,  i.  e.  lay-elders.  It  would  be  easy  to  produce,  from 


RULING  ELDERS.  099 

the  same  writer,  a  number  of  other  quotations  equally  to  our  pur- 
pose.    But  Dr.  Bowden  has  rendered  this  unnecessary,  by  making 
an  explicit  acknowledgment,  that  Augustine  repeatedly  mentions 
these  seniors  or  elders  as  belonging  to  other  churches  as  well  as  his 
own.   And  to  what  expedient  do  you  suppose  the  Doctor  resorts  to 
avoid  the  copsequence  of  this  acknowledgment  ?  Why,  he  gravely 
tells  us,  that  he  fully  believes,  with  the  "  learned  Bingliam"  that 
there  were,  within  the  first  three  or  four  centuries,  a  class  of 
aged  and  respectable  men  in  the  church,  who  were  styled  seniors 
or  elders,  and  whose  official  duty  it  was.  to  assist  in  promoting  the 
interests  of  the  church  :  That  some  of  these  were  called  Seniores 
Ecclesice,  i.  e.  elders  of  the  church,  who  were  chosen  to  assist  the 
bishop,  with  their  advice  and  counsel  in  the  weighty  affairs  of  the 
church :  and  that  another  class  were  called  Seniores  Ecclesiastici, 
i.  e.  ecclesiastical  elders,  who  were  sometimes  entrusted  with  the 
utensils,  treasures,  and  outward  affairs  of  the  church  j  but  had  no 
share  in  the  administration  of  discipline.     These  he  compares  with 
the  vestrymen  and  church  loardens,  which  are  generally  found  in 
episcopal  churches.  Vol.  J.  p.  205 — 207.  Now,  I  ask,  what  mate- 
rial difference  can  any  man  see  between  the  seniores  Ecclesice, 
which  Dr.  Bowden  acknowledges  to  have  existed  in  the  primitive 
church,  and  the  ruling  elders  of  the  Presbyterian  church  ?  Our 
elders  are  appointed  to  assist  the  bishop  of  each  particular  church 
with  their  counsel,  in  conducting  the  spiritual  concerns  of  the 
church.     And  is  not  this  precisely  the  duty  which  he  assigns  to 
the  seniores  ecclesice  of  the  primitive  church  ?  It  is  really  laughable 
to  find  Dr.  B.  conceding*,  in  substance,  all  that  we  desire ;  and 
yet,  on  account  of  some  petty  points  of  difference,  which  are  too 
frivolous  to  be  noticed,  and  which  do  not  affect  the  main  question, 
insisting  that  there  is  nothing  like  our  ruling  elders  to  be  found  in 
primitive  times! 

Though  the  readers  of  my  former  volume,  know  that  I  have  no 
great  respect  for  the  authority  of  the  work  generally  styled  Apos- 
tolic Constitutions ;  yet  many  episcopal  writers  have  expressed 
very  high  regard  for  this  work,  and  entire  confidence  in  its  authen- 
ticity. And,  although,  when  it  claims  apostolic  origin,  it  is  to  be 
rejected  as  an  "  impudent  forgery ;"  yet  there  is  a  high  degree  of 
probability  that  it  was  composed,  by  different  hands,  between  the 
second  andjifth  centuries.  The  following  quotation  from  it  will, 


300  LETTER  IV. 

therefore,  have  some  weight.  "  To  presbyters  also,  when  they 
"  labour  in  teaching,  let  a  double  portion  be  assigned."  11.  28. 
Here  is,  obviously,  a  distinction  between  elders  who  are  employed 
in  teaching,  and  those  who  are  not  so  employed.  How  the  others 
were  employed,  indeed,  is  not  said ;  but  teaching  made  no  part  of 
their  official  duty.  We  may  take  for  granted  their  duty  was  to 
assist  in  the  other  spiritual  concerns  of  the  church,  viz.  in  maintain- 
ing good  order  and  discipline.  This  is  precisely  the  distinction 
which  we  make,  and  which  we  are  confident  was  made  in  the  primi- 
tive church. 

It  would  be  easy  to  produce  many  more  quotations  from  other 
early  writers,  which  ascertain  the  existence  of  these  elders,  within 
the  first  three  or  four  centuries  of  the  Christian  sera.  But  it  is 
needless.  Our  opponents  acknowledge  the  fact.  Bishop  Taylor, 
a  great  authority  with  them,  among  others,  explicitly  grants,*  that 
a  class  of  men,  under  the  name  of  seniors  or  elders9  distinguished 
from  clergymen,  are  mentioned  by  a  number  of  early  writers,  as 
having  existed  in  the  church  at  an  early  period,  and  as  holding  in 
it  some  kind  of  official  station.  The  only  question  is,  what  kind  of 
elders  they  were  ?  These  gentlemen  exceedingly  dislike  the  idea  of 
their  being  such  elders  as  are  found  in  the  Presbyterian  church, 
and  assert  that  they  were  not ;  but  really  they  offer  nothing  against 
it  that  deserves  the  name  even  of  a  plausible  argument. 

In  my  former  letters,  in  exhibiting  the  testimony  usually  pro- 
duced from  Ignatius,  I  spoke  of  the  presbyters  or  elders  so  fre- 
quently mentioned  by  that  father,  in  the  following  terms.  "  Some 
"  of  these  elders  were  probably  ordained  to  the  work  of  the  minis- 
"  try,  and  of  course,  empowered  to  preach  and  administer  ordi- 
"  nances :  but  this  is  not  certain.  They  might  all  have  been 
"  ruling  elders  for  ought  that  appears  to  the  contrary.  For  in  all 
"  these  epistles,  it  is  no  where  said  that  they  either  preached  or 
"  dispensed  the  sacraments.  It  cannot  be  shown,  then,  that  Igna- 
"  tins,  by  his  presbyters  and  presbytery,  or  eldership,  means  any 
"  thing  else  than  a  bench  of  ruling  elders  in  each  church."  p.  96. 
This  suggestion  Dr.  Bowden  not  only  opposes  with  much  zeal,  but 
he  also  endeavours  to  cover  it  with  ridicule,  as  perfectly  frivolous 

*  I  think  this  concession  is  to  be  found  in  his  Episcopacy  Asserted.  That 
it  is  to  be  found  in  one  of  his  works,  I  am  certain. 


RULING   ELDERS.  301 

and  improbable.     So  far  as  he  reasons  on  the  point,  the  arguments 
which  he  employs  are  two.      The  first  is,  that "  there  is  no  proof 
(t  whatever  that  there  ever  was  such  an  order  of  men  in  the  church 
"  as  ruling  elders."  Of  the  force  of  this  argument  you  will  be  able 
to  judge,  after  reading  what  has  been  advanced,  and  what  is  yet  to 
come  in  proof  of  the  apostolic  institution  of  this  class  of  officers. 
The  second  argument,  is  that "  the  epistles  of  Ignatius  are  totally 
"  inconsistent  with  such  a  notion."  Now,  I  think,  in  direct  opposi- 
tion to  Dr.  B.  that  the  epistles  of  Ignatius  are  strongly  in  favour  of 
this  "  notion."     When  that  father  says,  "  It  is  not  lawful,  without 
"  the  bishop,  either  to  baptize,  or  to  celebrate  the  holy  communion," 
it  is  evident  that  his  presbyters  could  not  have  been  the  same  with 
those  who  bear  that  title  in  modern  episcopal  churches,  who  in  vir- 
tue of  their  original  commission,  andawithout  any  subsequent  per- 
mission of  the  bishop,  are  empowered,  at  all  times,  and  in  all  places, 
when  called  upon,  to  administer  both  baptism  and  the  Lord's  supper. 
Again ;  when  Ignatius  says,  "  Let  that  eucharist  be  looked  upon 
"  as  valid,  which  is  either  offered  by  the  bishop,  or  by  him  to  whom 
"  the  bishop  has  given  his  consent ;'?  Dr.  Bowden  chooses  to  take 
for  granted  that  the  person  to  whom  the  bishop  might  give  his  con- 
sent, and  who,  with  that  consent,  might  dispense  the  eucharist,  was 
one  of  the  presbyters  whom  Ignatius  distinguishes  from  the  bishop. 
But  this  is  not  said  by  Ignatius  ;  he  might  mean  the  bishop  of  some 
neighbouring  congregation.     There  is  not  a  single  instance  in  which 
the  pious  father  represents  his  presbyters  as,  in  fact,  preaching  or 
administering  sacraments.  But  even  supposing  his  presbyters  to  be 
ruling  elders,  and  supposing  him  to  mean,  that  they,  with  the  bi- 
shop's (or  pastor's)  leave,  might  administer  both  sacraments ;  this 
would  only  show  that  Ignatius  was  in  an  error,  as  Tertullian  was 
after  him,  who,  in  his  work  de  Baptismo,  after  asserting  that  the 
administration  of  baptism  was  appropriated  to  the  office  of  bishop, 
does  not  scruple  to  say,  that  even  a  layman  may  baptize  with  the 
bishop's  leave.     There  is,  then,  nothing  in  the  epistles  of  Ignatius 
at  all  inconsistent  with  the  supposition  that  a  portion,  or  even  the 
whole  of  his  presbyters  were  ruling  elders,  whose  official  duty  it 
was  to  assist  the  pastor  in  maintaining  order  and  discipline  In  the 
church. 

It  is  no  solid  objection  to  this  argument  from  the  fathers,  that  they 


302  LETTER  IV. 

sometimes  mention  these  elders  after  the  deacons,  as  if  the  former 
were  inferior  to  the  latter.     Nothing  can  be  inferred  from  a  fact  of 
this  kind.  Ignatius,  speaking  of  the  different  classes  of  church  offi- 
cers, expresses  himself  thus :  "  Let  all  reverence  the  deacons  as 
"  Jesus  Christ ;  and  the  bishop  as  the  father  ;  and  the  presbyters 
"  as  the  sanhedrim  of  God,  and  college  of  the  apostles."     But,  not- 
withstanding the  extravagance  and  impiety  of  this  exhortation,  did 
any  one  ever  suppose  that  Ignatius  designed  to  represent  deacons 
as  a  higher  order  than  bishops  ?  In  like  manner,  Clemens  Alexan- 
drinus  speaks  of  "  presbyters,  bishops,  and  deacons  ;"  but  who- 
ever dreamed  that  any  inference  with  respect  to  the  order  of  authori- 
ty was  to  be  drawn  from  this  arrangement  ?  Again ;  Dr.  Bowden 
objects,  that  "  Ignatius  makes  the  deacons  a  branch  of  the  minis- 
"  try  ;  but  every  branch  of  the  ministry  had  authority  to  preach; 
"  consequently  the  deacons,  instead  of  being  inferior  to  the  ruling 
"  elders,  must  have  been  superior  to  them."     This  objection  is  of 
as  little  force  as  the  last.     It  is  notorious  that  the  word  ministry, 
both  in  scripture  and  the  writings  of  the  fathers,  is  by  no  means 
confined  to  the  clergy,  but  is  frequently  employed  to  express  any 
kind  of  official  service  rendered  to  the  church.     To  produce  in- 
stances in  support  of  this  position  is  needless.  Every  well  inform- 
ed divine  knows  it  to  be  so.     When,  therefore,  the  word  ministry, 
unaccompanied  with  any  distinctive  epithet,  is  applied  either  to 
elders  or  deacons,  it  no  more  implies  a  power  to  preach,  or  admi- 
nister sealing  ordinances,  nor  does  it  throw  any  more  light  on  the 
point  of  order  and  precedence,  than  the  general  word  officer. 

But  the  truth  is,  deacons  being  called  ministers  or  even  clergy- 
men, does  not  militate  in  the  least,  against  our  view  of  their  office. 
It  is  well  known,  as  was  stated  in  a  former  letter,  that  in  the  third 
and  fourth  centuries,  ail  classes  of  church  officers,  even  readers  and 
acolyths,  as  well  as  elders  and  deacons,  were  numbered  among  the 
clergy,  that  is,  as  the  term  obviously  imports,  those  who  were  set 
apart  to  spiritual  or  sacred  work. 

Having  seen  that  both  scripture  and  the  fathers  afford  a  clear 
warrant  for  the  office  of  ruling  elders  in  the  church  ;  let  us  next 
inquire  whether  the  reformers  and  other  distinguished  witnesses 
for  the  truth,  in  different  ages  and  countries,  declared  for  or  against 
this  office.  I  know  that  the  authority  of  the  reformers  is  not  to 


RULING  ELDERS.  303 

be  considered,  any  more  than  that  of  the  fathers,  as  a  rule  either 
of  faith  or  practice  5  but  when  we  recollect  the  great  talents,  the 
profound  learning,  the  fervent  piety,  and  the  eminent  services  of 
many  of  those  distinguished  men,  in  clearing  away  the  errors  of 
popery,  and  restoring  the  faith  and  order  of  the  primitive  church 
we  cannot  fail  to  acknowledge  that  their  opinions  and  decisions  are 
worthy  of  high  regard.  It  is  worth  while,  therefore,  to  inquire  what 
those  opinions  and  decisions  were,  with  respect  to  the  question 
before  us. 

John  Paul  Perrin,  the  celebrated  historian  of  the  Waldenses,  and 
who  was  himself  one  of  the  ministers  of  that  people,  in  a  number 
of  places  recognises  the  office  of  ruling  elder  as  retained  in  their 
churches.  He  expressly  and  repeatedly  asserts,  that  the  synods  of 
the  Waldenses,  long  before  the  time  of  Luther,  were  composed  of 
ministers  and  elders,* 

The  same  writer  tells  us,  that,  in  the  year  1467,  the  Hussites 
being  engaged  in  reforming  and  separating  their  churches  from  the 
church  of  Rome,  understood  that  there  were  some  churches  of  the 
ancient  Waldenses  in  Austria,  in  which  the  purity  of  the  gospel  was 
retained,  and  in  which  there  were  many  eminent  pastors.  In  order 
to  ascertain  the  truth  of  this  account,  they  (the  Hussites,}  sent  two 
of  their  ministers  with  two  elders  to  inquire  into,  and  know  what 
those  flocks  jor  congregations  were.t 

The  same  historian,  in  the  same  work,  speaks  of"  the  ministers 
el  and  elders  of  the  Bohemian  churches.!" 

The  testimony  of  Perrin  is  supported  by  that  of  Gillis,  another 
historian  of  the  Waldenses,  and  also  one  of  their  pastors.  In  the 
Confession  of  Faith  §  of  that  people,  inserted  at  length  in  the 
"  addition"  to  his  work,  it  is  declared,  (p.  490.  Art.  31.)  that  "  It 
"  is  necessary  for  the  church  to  have  pastors  to  preach  God's  word, 
"  to  administer  the  sacraments,  and  to  watch  over  the  sheep  of 
"  Jesus  Christ  5  and  also  elders  and  deacons,  according  to  the  rules 

*  Hist,  of  the  old  Waldenses,  part  n.  Book  n.  chap.  4. 
f  Ibid.  chap.  10. 

*  Ibid.  chap.  9. 

§  This  confession,  Gillis  expressly  declares  to  have  been  the  confession 
of  the  ancient,  as  well  as  the  modern  Waldenses. 


304  LETTER  IV. 

«  of  good  and  holy  church  discipline,  and  the  practice  of  the 
u  primitive  church." 

Here,  then,  is  direct  and  unquestionable  testimony  that  the 
Waldenses,  the  Hussites,  and  the  Bohemian  Brethren,  had  ruling 
elders  in  their  churches  long  before  Calvin  was  born.  Yet  Cal- 
vin, we  are  gravely  told  by  Dr.  Bowden  and  his  friends,  was  the 
inventor  of  this  class  of  church  officers  !  I  cannot  help  thinking 
that  a  "  learned  man,"  and  a  tl  scholar,"  (a  character  which  Dr. 
B.  often  impliedly  assumes  to  himself)  ought  to  have  taken  care 
to  be  better  informed  before  he  ventured  to  make  such  an  asser- 
tion. 

But  we  have  still  more  pointed  evidence  that  the  churches  which 
ecclesiastical  historians  have  generally  distinguished  by  the  title  of 
the  Bohemian  Brethren,  and  which  flourished  before  the  time  of 
Luther,  bore  their  testimony  in  favour  of  the  office  of  riding  elder, 
by  retaining  it,  amidst  all  the  degeneracy  of  the  times.  This  fact 
is  attested  by  Martin  Bucer,  a  learned  Lutheran  divine,  whose 
fame  induced  archbishop  Cranmer  to  invite  him  to  England^ 
where  he  received  preferment  and  patronage,  and  was  held  in 
high  estimation.  He  speaks  of  it  in  the  following  terms  : 

"  The  Bohemian  Brethren^  who  published  a  confession  of 
"  their  faith  in  the  year  1535,  with  a  preface  by  Luther,  and  who 
"  almost  alone  preserved  in  the  world  the  purity  of  .the  doctrine, 
"  and  the  vigour  of  the  discipline  of  Christ,  observed  an  excellent 
tc  rule,  for  which  we  are  compelled  to  give  them  credit,  and  espe- 
t(  cially  to  praise  that  God  who  thus  wrought  by  them  ;  notwith- 
"  standing  those  brethren  are  preposterously  despised  by  some 
"  learned  men.  The  rule  w  hich  they  observed  was  this :  besides 
"  ministers  of  the  word  and  sacraments,  they  had,  in  each  church, 
"  a  bench  or  college  of  men  excelling  in  gravity  and  prudence,  who 
"  performed  the  duties  of  admonishing  and  correcting  offenders 
"  composing  differences,  and  judicially  deciding  in  cases  of  dispute. 
"  Of  this  kind  of  elders,  Hilary  (Ambrose)  wrote,  when  he  said, 
«  Therefore  the  synagogue,  and  afterwards  the  church  had  elders, 
"  without  whose  counsel  nothing  was  done."* 

*Scripta  duo  Adversaria  Latomi,  &c.  in  Cap.  De  Ectks.  JHuthoritat.  p. 
159. 


RULING  ELDERS.  305 

The  celebrated  Peter  Martyr,  a  protestant  divine  of  Italy, 
whose  high  reputation  induced  Edward  VI,  to  invite  him  into 
England,  where  he  was  made  professor  of  divinity  at  Oxford,  and 
canon  of  Christ  Church,  speaks  of  ruling  elders  in  the  following 
decisive  terms  :  "  The  church,"  (speaking  of  the  primitive  church) 
"  had  its  elders,  or  if  I  may  so  speak,  its  senate,  who  consulted 
"  about  things  that  were  for  edification  for  the  time  being.  Paul 
"  describes  this  kind  of  ministry,  not  only  in  the  12th  chapter  of 
"  the  epistle  to  the  Romans,but  also  in  the  first  epistle  to  Timothy, 
"  where  he  thus  writes,  Let  the  elders  that  rule  well  be  counted 
"  worthy  of  double  honour,  especially  those  that  labour  in  the 
«  word  and  doctrine.  Which  words  appear  to  me  to  signify,  that 
"  there  were  then  some  'elders  who  taught  and  preached  the  word 
"  of  God  ;  and  another  class  of  elders  who  did  not  teach,  but  only 
"  ruled  in  the  church.  Concerning  these  Ambrose  speaks,  when 
"  he  expounds  this  passage  in  Timothy.  Nay,  he  inquires  wheth- 
"  er  it  was  o\»ing  to  the  pride  or  the  sloth  of  the  sacerdotal  order 
"  that  they  had  then  almost  ceased  in  the  church."* 

In  the  Confession  of  Saxony,  drawn  up  by  Melancthon,  in  1551, 
and  subscribed  by  a  large  number  of  Lutheran  churches,  we  find 
this  class  of  church  officers,  recognized,  and  represented  as  in  use 
in  those  churches.  Speaking  of  the  exercise  of  discipline,  in  its 
various  parts,  they  say — "  That  these  things  may  be  done  orderly, 
"  there  be  also  consistories  appointed  in  our  churches.79  Of  these 
consistories,  the  principal  members,  it  is  well  known,  were  ruling 
elders. 

That  there  were  ruling  elders  in  the  primitive  church,  is  also 
explicitly  granted  by  archbishop  Whitgift,  a  warm  and  learned 
friend  of  diocesan  episcopacy.  "  I  know,"  says  he, "  that  in  the 
"  primitive  church,  they  had  in  every  church  certain  seniors,  to 
"  whom  the  government  of  the  congregation  was  committed ;  but 
"  that  was  before  there  was  any  Christian  prince  or  magistrate 
"  that  openly  professed  the  gospel ;  and  before  there  was  any 
"  church  by  public  authority  established."  And  again,  "  Both 
"  the  names  and  offices  of  seniors  were  extinguished  before 
"  Ambrose  his  time,  as  he  himself  doth  testify,  writing  upon  the 

*  P.  Martyris  Loci  Communes.    Class  IV.  Cap.  I.  Sect.  2. 
2  Q 


306  LETTER  IV. 

"Jifth  of  the  first  epistle  to  Timothy.  Indeed,  as  Ambrose  saith, 
"  the  synagogue,  and  after  the  church,  had  seniors,  without  whose 
"  counsel  nothing  was  done  in  the  church  ;  but  that  was  before 
"  his  time,  and  before  there  was  any  Christian  magistrate,  or  any 
«  church  established."* 

Szegedin,  a  very  eminent  divine,  of  Hungary,  contemporary 
with  Luther,  also  speaks  decidedly  of  the  apostolic  institution  of 
ruling  elders.  The  following  passage  is  sufficient  to  exhibit  his 
sentiments.  u  The  ancient  church  had  presbyters  or  elders,  of 
"  which  the  apostle  speaks,  1  Corinth.  5.  4.  And  these  elders 
"  were  of  two  kinds.  One  class  of  them  preached  the  gospel, 
"  administered  the  sacraments,  and  governed  the  church,  the  same 
"  as  bishops  ;  for  bishops  and  presbyters  are  the  same  order.  But 
"  another  class  of  elders  consisted  of  grave  and  upright  men,  taken 
"  from  among  the  laity,  who,  together  with  the  preaching  elders 
"  before  mentioned,  consulted  respecting  the  affairs  of  the  church, 
"  and  devoted  their  labour  to  admonishing,  correcting,  and  taking 
"  care  of  the  flock  of  Christ."! 

Hieronymus  Kromayer,  a  learned  Lutheran  divine,  and  professor 
of  divinity  in  the  university  ofLeipsic,  who  lived  in  the  age  imme- 
diately following  that  of  Luther,  bears  decided  testimony  to  the 
apostolic  institution  of  ruling  elders.  "  The  title  of  bishop,"  says 
he, "  takes  its  name  from  a  Greek  word,  which  signifies  an  over- 
"  seer.  This  title  differs  from  that  of  presbyter,  because  the  lat- 
"  ter  is  taken  from  age.  Of  presbyters  or  elders,  there  were  for- 
"  merly  two  kinds,  those  who  taught,  and  those  who  exercised  the 
"  office  of  rulers  in  the  church.  This  is  taught  in  1  Timothy  v.  17. 
"  Let  the  elders  that  rule  well  be  accounted  worthy  of  double  hon- 
"  our,  especially  those  who  labour  in  the  word  and  doctrine.  The 
"  latter  were  the  same  as  our  ministers,  at  present ;  the  former 
"  were  like  the  members  of  our  consistories.  Jerome  tells  us  that 
"  the  practice  of  choosing  one  to  preside  over  the  rest,  was  brought 
"  in  as  a  remedy  for  schism ;  so  that  a  bishop  is  nothing  more 
u  than  the  first  presbyter.  This  doctrine  is  very  offensive  to  the 
"papists;  but  we  have  the  word  of  God  going  before  us,  as  a 

*  Defence  against  Cartwright,  p.  638.  651. 

f  Szedigini  Loci  Communes,  p.  197.   Edit,  quint,  folio — Basil,  1608. 


RULING  ELDERS.  307 

«  light  and  a  guide,  and  this  plainly  represents  presbyters  and 
"  bishops  as  the  same  thing.7'* 

The  learned  Voetius,  a  Dutch  divine  of  great  eminence,  also 
contends  for  the  apostolic  institution  of  ruling  elders.  He  speaks 
of  a  number  of  popish  writers,  as  particularly  warm  and  zealous  in 
their  opposition  to  this  class  of  church  officers  ;  "  Nor.is  this,"  says 
he,  "  any  wonder,  since  nothing  is  more  opposite  to  the  papal 
"  monarchy,  and  antichristian  tyranny,  than  is  the  institution  of 
"  ruling  elders."  Voetius  is  of  the  opinion  that  the  church  war- 
dens in  the  church  of  England  are  the  "  vestiges"  of  these  "  ruling 
seniors."! 

Ursinus,  an  eminent  German  divine,  who  lived  about  the  same 
time  with  Luther,  in  enumerating  the  officers  of  the  church,  as  laid 
down  in  the  word  of  God,  speaks  of  ruling  elders  and  deacons. 
The  former  he  defines  to  be  officers  "  elected  by  the  voice  of  the 
"  church,  to  assist  in  conducting  discipline)  and  to  order  a  variety 
"  of  necessary  matters  in  the  church."  And  the  latter  as  officers, 
"  elected  by  the  church,  to  take  care  of  the  poor,  and  to  distribute 


After  this  view  of  the  opinions  of  some  of  the  most  distinguished 
reformers  and  others,  in  favour  of  the  office  of  ruling  elders,  you 
will  not  be  surprised  to  hear,  that  the  great  body  of  the  reformed 
churches  adopted,  and  have  always  maintained,  this  class  of  officers. 
Instead  of  being  confined,  as  Dr.  Bowden  and  his  friends  seem  to 
imagine,  to  Geneva  and  Scotland,  they  were  generally  introduced, 
with  the  reformation,  by  Lutherans  as  well  as  Calvinists  ;  and  are 
generally  retained  to  the  present  day,  in  almost  all  the  protestant 
churches,  excepting  that  of  England.  We  have  seen  that  the  Wai- 
denses,  the  Hussites,  and  the  JSohemian  brethren  had  them  long 
before  Calvin  was  born.  It  is  notorious  that  the  reformed  churches 
of  Germany,  France,  Holland,  &c.  received  this  class  of  elders 
early,  and  expressly  represented  them  in  their  public  confessions, 
as  founded  on  the  word  of  God.  And  it  is  a  fact  equally  notorious, 

*  Historia  Ecclesiastica  Autore  Hieronymo  Kromayero,  D.  D.  &  S.  S. 
T.  P.  in  Acad.  Lips.  4to.  p.  59. 

f  Polit.  Eccles.  par.  u.  Lib.  ii.  tract:  3.  cap.  4.  sect.  1.  2. 
t  Carpus  Doctrinx.  par.  iii.  p.  721. 


308  LETTER  IV. 

that  the  Lutherans,  as  well  as  the  Presbyterians  in  our  own  coun- 
try, have,  at  this  hour,  lay  elders  to  assist  in  the  government  and 
discipline  of  the  church.  The  truth  is,  that  at  the  period  of  the 
reformation,  three-fourths  of  the  whole  protestant  world  declared  in 
favour  of  this  class  of  elders ;  not  merely  as  expedient,  but  as 
appointed  in  the  apostolic  chutch,  and  as  necessary  to  be  restored. 
And  to  the  present  time  a  decided  majority  of  protestants  maintain 
the  same  opinion  and  practice. 

Many  of  the  objections  against  ruli?ig  elders,  on  which  my  oppo- 
nents lay  the  greatest  stress,  are  entirely  groundless,  and  arise  from 
a  total  want  of  acquaintance  with  the  nature  and  duties  of  the 
office.  Mr.  How  speaks  of  them  as  officers  invested  with  "  mere 
temporal  functions."  Now  this  is  so  far  from  being  the  case,  that 
they  are  not  invested  with  "  temporal  functions"  at  all.  Their 
office  and  duties  are  purely  spiritual.  Dr.  Kemp  represents  them 
as  "  unordained"  officers,  and  expresses  much  astonishment  that  I 
should  insist  on  the  church  having  been  organized  after  the  model 
of  the  synagogue,  since  the  elders  of  the  synagogue  were  ordained, 
while  he  asserts  that  those  of  the  Presbyterian  church  are  not. 
This  gentleman  gives  us  to  understand  that  he  was  bred  a  Presby- 
terian, and  speaks  of  it  as  one  of  the  advantages  which  he  enjoys 
in  conducting  the  controversy.  But,  truly,  he  discovers,  on  a 
variety  of  occasions,  that  he  left  our  church  without  being  acquaint- 
ed with  even  the  elementary  principles  of  its  government.  To 
prove  this  I  need  not  go  further  than  the  case  under  consideration. 
The  fact  is,  that  in  every  regular  Presbyterian  church,  ruling 
elders  are  always  ordained ;  sometimes  with  the  imposition  of 
hands,  and  sometimes  without  it.  Both  methods  are  in  use,  in 
different  parts  of  Europe,  as  well  as  our  own  country.  But  an 
ordination  of  some  kind  is  never  omitted  by,  those  who  act  regularly. 
Perhaps  Dr.  Kemp  would  say,  that  the  imposition  of  hands  is  essen- 
tial to  every  ordination  ;  and  that,  as  we  ordain  our  ruling  elders 
more  frequently  without  this  ceremony  than  with  it,  he  is  warranted 
in  representing  them  generally  as  "  unordained."  If  so,  he  is  of 
a  different  mind  from  some  of  the  most  learned  and  pious  bishops 
of  the  church  of  England,  who  have  decided  that  it  is  not  the 
formality  of  laying  on  hands  which  constitutes  the  essence  of  a 


RULING  ELDERS.  309 

lawful  vocation  to  office  in  the  church;  but  the  election  and 
appointment  to  the  office.* 

Dr.  Bowden  makes  an  objection  to  the  office  of  ruling  elder,  as 
it  exists  in  the  Presbyterian  church,  which  I  scarcely  expected 
from  so  grave  a  reasoner.    It  is  this  :  That  if  the  office  be  such  as 
we  represent  it,  and  the  scriptural  warrant  for  it  such  as  we  are  in 
the  habit  of  quoting,  especially  if  1  Tim.  v.  17.  be  considered  as 
pointing  out  this  class  of  elders,  that  then  there  ought  to  be  a  sala- 
ry or  some  kind  of  temporal  support   annexed  to  the  office. 
u  But,"  he  adds,  "  to  put  a  ruling  elder  in  this  respect,  upon  a 
"  footing  with  a  minister  of  the  word,  is  altogether  preposterous. 
"  And  I  am  convinced  that  your  congregations  would  think  it  so, 
"  were  it  proposed  to  allow  the  ruling  elders  as  ample  a  salary  as 
"  they  do  their  ministers,  or  any  salary  at  all.  Let  the  experiment 
"  be  made  universally  in  your  churches,  and  I  will  commit  myself, 
"  that  we  shall  never  see  the  face  of  a  ruling  elder  again."  i.  201. 
But  what  has  this  to  do  with  the  apostolic  institution  of  the  ruling 
elder's  office  ?  Suppose  it  conceded,  that  a  compensation  ought  to 
be  made  to  this  class  of  officers,  for  their  services  5  and  suppose  it 
also  conceded,  that  no  such  compensation  is  ever,  in  fact,  made ; 
will  it  follow  that  such  officers  cannot  be  of  divine  appointment  ? 
Dr.  B.  would  think  it  strange  reasoning  in  any  man  to  infer,  that, 
because  the  labourer  is  worthy  of  his  hire,  his  clerical  commis- 
sion depends   on  the  payment  of  his  salary ;  and  that  if  the  one 
should  be  withdrawn,  the  other  would  cease  with  it.     Did  the 
apostle  Paul  cease  to  be  a  minister  of  Jesus  Christ   because  he 
laboured,  working  with  his  own  hands,  that  he  might  not  be 
chargeable  to  any  ;  while,  at  the  same  time,  he  declared,  that 
they  who  serve  at  the  altar,  should  live  by  the  altar  ?  Nothing 

*  When  I  began  these  sheets,  it  was  my  intention  to  take  notice  of  all 
the  material  points  in  the  letters  of  Dr.  Kemp,  as  well  as  in  the  writings 
of  my  other  opponents  ;  and  accordingly  I  made  a  kind  of  engagement 
to  do  so,  in  a  former  letter.  But  I  had  not  gone  far  on  this  plan,  before  it 
became  apparent  that  fulfilling  my  engagement  would  be  equally  useless 
and  irksome.  The  fact  is,  that  the  "  rector  of  Great  Choptank,"  has 
scarcely  stated  a  single  objection  or  argument,  but  what  has  been 
exhibited  with  more  plausibility  and  strength  by  Dr.  Bowden.  In  refuting 
the  latter,  therefore,  the/ormer  is,  of  course,  refuted.  On  this  account 
I  beg  to  be  excused  in  future,  for  passing  over  the  attack  of  Dr.  Kemp 
in  silence. 


310  '  LETTER  IV. 

can  be  more  absurd  than  to  suppose  it.  Yet  this,  even  conceding 
the  fact  for  which  Dr.  B.  contends,  is  the  amount  of  his  whole 
argument. 

But  the  fact  cannot  be  conceded.  If  Dr.  Bo  wden  had  been  as 
well  acquainted  with  the  Presbyterian  church,  as  a  discreet  man 
would  have  taken  care  to  be,  before  he  suffered  himself  to  speak  so 
confidently  on  the  subject,  he  would  have  known,  that  a  compen- 
sation for  their  services  has  often  been  made  to  ruling  elders  ; 
and  that  the  nature  and  amount  of  this  compensation,  depend  on 
the  circumstances  of  the  elders  themselves,  and  of  the  church 
which  they  serve. 

But,  leaving  this  collateral  inquiry,  it  is  time  that  we  should 
return  to  the  main  question  j  which  shall  be  resumed  in  the  next 
letter. 


(  311  ) 


LETTER  V. 


TESTIMONY  OF  THE  FATHERS. 


CHRISTIAN  BRETHREN, 

IN  my  former  volume,  while  I  insisted  that  the  cause  in  question 
should  be  tried  at  the  bar  of  scripture  alone,  and  utterly  protested 
against  the  jurisdiction  of  the  fathers,  I  still  consented  to  examine 
their  testimony,  and  devoted  two  long  letters  to  that  examination. 
In  those  letters,  if  more  impartial  judges,  as  well  as  myself,  are  not 
deceived,  there  is  abundant  proof,  that  the  fathers  of  the  FIRST 
TWO  CENTURIES,  do  not  contain  a  sentence  that  can  be  justly  con- 
strued in  favour  of  prelacy ;  but  that,  on  the  contrary,  their 
testimony  is  decisively  favourable  to  Presbyterian  parity.  Dr. 
Eowden,  indeed,  is  of  a  different  opinion,  and  speaks  with  great 
confidence  and  asperity  in  a  different  strain.  But  after  the  speci- 
men which  has  been  given  of  the  manner  in  which  that  gentleman 
can  treat  demonstrative  proof,  and  even  plain  declarations  of 
scripture,  we  need  not  wonder  that,  in  his  eyes,  every  argument  is 
"  frivolous,"  and  even  "  contemptible  cavilling,"  which  opposes  his 
episcopal  creed. 

I  have  neither  the  leisure  nor  the  patience  again  to  go  over  the 
whole  ground  of  the  testimony  of  the  fathers  on  this  subject. 
My  only  design  in  the  present  letter,  is,  with  great  brevity,  to 
examine  a  few  of  the  strictures  of  Dr.  Bowden  ;  to  confirm  some 
of  my  statements  which  have  been  most  confidently  and  boldly 
called  in  question  ;  and  to  supply  some  of  the  defects  of  my  for- 
mer letters  on  this  part  of  the  controversy. 


312  TESTIMONY  OF  THE  FATHERS. 

Suffer  me,  my  brethren,  again  to  remind  you  of  the  principle 
on  which  we  proceed,  in  this  part  of  our  inquiry.  If  it  could  be 
demonstrated  from  the  writings  of  the  fathers,  that,  in  one  hun- 
dred, or  even  in  fifty  years,  after  the  death  of  the  last  apostle,  the 
system  of  diocesan  episcopacy  had  been  generally  adopted  in  the 
church,  it  would  be  nothing  to  the  purpose.  As  long  as  no  traces 
of  this  fact  could  be  found  in  the  Bible,  but  much  of  a  directly 
opposite  nature,  we  should  stand  on  a  secure  and  immovable 
foundation.  To  all  reasonings,  then,  derived  from  the  fathers,  I 
answer,  with  the  venerable  Augustine,  whoa  when  pressed  with  the 
authority  of  Cyprian,  replied,  "  His  writings  I  hold  not  to  be 
"  canonical,  but  examine  them  by  the  canonical  writings  :  And  in 
"  them,  what  agreeth  with  the  authority  of  divine  scripture,  I 
"  accept,  with  his  praise;  what  agreeth  not,  I  reject  with  his 
«  leave."* 

But  our  refusal  to  be  tried  by  the  fathers,  is  founded  on  principle, 
and  not  upon  any  fear  of  the  result  of  such  a  trial.  We  know  what 
their  writings  contain  ;  and  are  sure  that  our  episcopal  brethren 
would  lose  instead  of  gaining,  by  an  impartial  examination  of  their 
testimony.  We  are  perfectly  ready,  then,  to  meet  Dr.  Bowden,  or 
any  other  man,  and  to  hear  what  he  has  to  say  on  this  department 
of  evidence. 

In  entering  on  this  branch  of  the  controversy  in  my  former 
letters,  I  made  the  following  remarks :  "  Before  we  proceed  to 
examine  the  testimony  of  the  fathers,  let  us  be  careful  to  recollect 
precisely,  what  our  episcopal  brethren  contend  for,  and  what  they 
are  bound  to  prove  by  these  witnesses,  in  order  to  make  good  their 
claims.  When  they  show  us  passages  in  which  these  early  writers 
merely  speak  of  bishops,  they  seem  to  imagine  that  their  point  is 
gained  :  but  such  passages  are,  in  fact,  nothing  to  their  purpose. 
We  do  not  deny  that  there  were  bishops  in  the  primitive  church : 
on  the  contrary,  we  contend  that  the  word  bishop  was  a  title  given, 
in  apostolic  times  and  long  afterwards,  to  every  pastor  of  a  par- 
ticular congregation.  Again,  when  they  quote  passages  which 
barely  enumerate  bishops,  presbyters,  and  deacons,  as  distinct 
officers  in  the  church,  they  can  derive  no  assistance  even  from  these; 
because  there  were,  doubtless, presbyters,  at  that  time,  as  well  as 

•  Contra  Crescon.  II.  Cap.  32. 


TESTIMONY  OF  THE  FATHERS.  313 

now,  who,  though  in  full  orders  were  not  invested  with  a  pastoral 
charge  ;  and  who  must,  therefore,  be  distinguished  from  such  as 
were  literally  overseers  or  bishops  of  particular  Hocks.  Besides, 
we  know  that  there  were  ruling  elders  in  the  primitive  church ;  a 
class  of  presbyters  confessed  to  be  inferior  to  bishops  in  their 
ecclesiastical  character.  In  enumerating  church  officers,  then, 
there  was  frequently  a  necessity  for  making  the  distinction  above 
stated,  without  in  the  least  favouring  the  pretended  superiority  of 
order  among  those  who  laboured  in  the  word  and  doctrine.  No  ; 
the  advocates  for  diocesan  episcopacy,  if  they  would  derive  any 
support  to  their  cause  from  the  writings  of  the  fathers,  must  do 
what  they  have  never  yet  done.  They  must  produce,  from  those 
venerable  remains  of  antiquity,  passages  which  prove,  either  by 
direct  assertion,  or  fair  inference,  that  the  bishops  of  the  primitive 
church  were  a  distinct  order  of  clergy  from  {hose  presbyters  who 
were  authorized  to  preach  and  administer  sacraments,  and  superior 
to  them;  that  these  bishops,  when  they  were  advanced  to  this 
superior  office,  had  a  new  and  distinct  ordination ;  that  each 
bishop  had  under  him  a  number  of  congregations,  with  their 
pastors,  whom  he  governed ;  that  these  bishops  were  exclusively 
invested  with  the  right  of  ordaining,  and  administering  the  rite 
of  confirmation ;  and  that  this  kind  of  episcopacy  was  considered, 
by  the  whole  primitive  church,  as  an  institution  of  Jesus  Christ. 
When  any  one  of  these  facts  is  fairly  proved,  from  early  antiquity, 
the  friends  of  Presbyterian  church  government  will  feel  as  if  they 
had  something  like  solid  argument  to  contend  with  ;  but  not  till 
then.  Now,  after  having  given  much  close  and  serious  attention 
to  this  subject,  I  can  venture  to  assure  you,  that  in  all  the  authen- 
tic writings  which  have  come  down  to  us,  of  those  fathers  who 
lived  within  the  first  two  hundred  years  after  Christ,  there  is  not 
a  single  sentence  which  can  be  considered,  by  an  impartial 
reader,  as  affording  the  least  support  to  any  one  of  these 
positions." 

Of  these  remarks  I  cannot  find  that  Dr.  Bowden  has  taken  the 
least  notice.  He  goes  on,  falling  into  the  very  errors,  against 
which  he  was  thus  explicitly  warned  ;  and  confidently  urging  the 
very  arguments  which  are  here  shown  to  be  worthless.  For 
instance,  when  he  finds  one  of  the  early  fathers  speaking  of  a  par- 
ticular person  as  bishop  of  a  certain  church,  he  immediately  takes 
2  R 


314  LETTER  V. 

for  granted  that  a  prelatical  bishop  was  intended,  and  declaims 
accordingly  with  all  the  parade  of  complete  triumph.  But  this 
is  a  gross  and  most  unwarrantable  begging  of  the  question.  The 
word  bishop  unquestionably  decides  nothing  in  his  favour;  for 
Dr.  B.  and  all  our  opponents,  acknowledge,  what  we  know  to 
have  been  the  fact,  that  this  title  was  applied,  in  the  days  of  the 
apostles,  and  is  expressly  used  by  the  inspired  writers,  to  designate 
the  pastors  of  single  congregations.  Nay,  they  acknowledge,  that 
for  near  an  hundred  years  after  the  apostolic  age,  'the  titles  of 
bishop  and  presbyter  were  often  interchangeably  applied  to  the 
same  persons.  When  we  attempt  to  derive  an  argument  from 
the  application  of  the  title  bishop  to  the  pastors  of  single  churches, 
which  is  undoubtedly  to  be  found  in  scripture,  they  do  not  attempt 
to  deny  the  fact ;  but  insist  that  the  argument  from  names  is  of  no 
value.  But  why  is  it  of  more  value  in  one  case  than  another  ?  If 
a  name  decides  nothing  when  found  in  the  Bible,  it  decides  nothing 
when  found  in  the  fathers.  When,  therefore,  so  much  is  made 
of  the  mere  insulated  title  of  bishop,  when  found  in  the  early 
writers,  it  is  mere  imposition  on  vulgar  credulity.  No  inference 
can  be  legitimately  drawn  from  it,  in  the  least  degree  favourable 
to  the  episcopal  cause. 

Again ;  when  Dr.  B.  finds  bishops,  presbyters,  and  deacons, 
mentioned  separately,  and  distinguished  from  each  other,  in  some 
of  the  early  fathers,  he  never  fails  immediately  to  rush  to  the  con- 
clusion, that  different  orders  or  ranks  of  clergy  were  intended  by 
this  distinct  enumeration.  But  this  conclusion  is  no  less  illogical 
and  groundless  than  the  former.  Dr.  B.  knows,  or  ought  to  know, 
that,  on  Presbyterian  principles,  though  every  bishop  is  a  presbyter, 
yet  every  presbyter  is  not  a  bishop  ;  since  no  man  can,  with  pro- 
priety, according  to  our  system,  receive  the  latter  title  unless  he  have 
the  pastoral  charge  of  a  congregation.  We  have  satisfactory  proof 
that  there  were,  in  the  primitive  church,  clergymen  in  full  orders, 
that  is,  empowered  to  preach  and  administer  sacraments,  who  yet 
had  no  pastoral  charge  ;  but  acted  the  part  of  assistants  or  curates 
to  the  pastor,  rector,  or  bishop.  Now  in  what  manner  could  such 
persons  be  distinguished  from  those  who  were  invested  with  a 
pastoral  charge,  but  by  calling  the  one  class  bishops,  and  the  other 
presbyters  ?  In  the  Presbyterian  Church,  we  distinguish  them  in 
this  manner ;  and  in  the  Church  of  England,  they  distinguish  them 


TESTIMONY  OF  THE  FATHERS.  315 

by  calling  the  former  rectors  and  the  latter  curates.  And  with  just 
as  much  reason  might  some  person,  five  hundred  years  hence, 
assert  that  pastors  and  assistant  presbyters,  or  rectors  and  curates 
were  different  orders  of  clergy  in  the  eighteenth  century ;  as  Dr. 
Bowden  can  now  insist  that  bishops  and  presbyters  were  different 
orders  in  the  primitive  church.  The  argument  is  totally  delusive ; 
nor  could  it  have  been  so  often  and  so  gravely  repeated,  had  there 
not  been,  on  the  part  of  those  who  have  urged  it,  a1  miserable  defici- 
ency of  sounder  proof. 

But  further;  I  have  proved,  in  the  foregoing  letter,  that  there 
were  ruling,  as  well  as  teaching  presbyters,  or  elders,  in  the  apos- 
tolic church,  and  for  several  centuries  after  the  apostolic  age.  It 
was,  doubtless,  necessary,  sometimes  at  least,  to  speak  of  this  class 
of  officers,  as  distinguished  from  those  who,  in  the  character  of  pas- 
tors, preached  and  administered  sacraments.  And  what  method  of 
making  this  distinction  was  more  convenient  than  that  which  we 
now  employ,  when  we  divide  our  church  officers  into  three  general 
classes,  viz.  bishops,  elders,  and  deacons?  In  whatever  point  of 
light,  then,  we  view  this  three-fold  distinction,  which  is  sometimes 
met  with  in  the  early  writers,  it  cannot,  in  the  smallest  degree,  serve 
the  cause  of  prelacy. 

Dr.  Bowden  makes  a  number  of  complaints  respecting  my  man- 
ner of  stating  the  testimony  of  {he  fathers.  I  shall  consider,  and 
endeavour  to  answer  these  complaints,  before  I  proceed  to  exhibit 
such  further  testimony  from  those  early  writers,  as  appears  to  me 
favourable  to  the  doctrine  of  Presbyterian  parity. 

He  complains,  in  the  first  place,  that  I  have  omitted  to  stale 
some  material  testimony  from  writers  of  the  second  century.  He 
evidently  intimates,  that  this  omission  was  designed  ;  and  that  it  is 
a  very  important  one;  and  undertakes  to  supply  it  by  bringing 
forward  a  few  detached  scraps  from  three  early  writers.  These 
writers  are  Dionysius,  Polycrates,  and  Hegesippus.  To  render 
the  charge  of  omission  more  serious,  the  doctor  inserts  it  in  a  long 
and  solemn  list  of  accusations,  to  which  he  endeavours  to  give  as 
much  point  as  possible,  at  the  close  of  his  work.  This  charge 
surprises  me,  on  a  variety  of  accounts.  Had  I  professed  to  give 
ALL  the  testimony,  which  the  first  two  centuries  furnish,  Dr.  B. 
might  justly  have  complained  of  any  omission.  But  when  no  such 
profession  was  made ;  when  the  contrary  was  distinctly  announced ; 


316  LETTER  V. 

when  I  formally,  and  more  than  once  stated,  that  not  the  whole,  but 
the  great  body  of  the  strongest  and  most  important  testimony  was 
intended  to  be  brought  forward ;  and  when,  from  the  very  nature 
and  size  of  my  work,  nothing  more  than  a  selection,  and  even  that 
a  very  limited  one,  was  possible  ;  it  is  more  than  wonderful  that 
an  imputation  so  serious  should  be  advanced,  even  if  I  had  omitted 
to  produce  passages  of  real  importance.  But  this  is  far  from  being 
the  case.  The  passages  concerning  which  so  formal  and  heavy  a 
complaint  is  made,  will  be  found,  on  examination,  to  be  of  no  solid 
value  to  the  advocates  of  episcopacy.  What  do  these  writers  say  ? 
Why,  Dionysius,  who  lived  about  the  year  170,  and  whose  writings 
are  all  lost,  excepting  a  few  sentences,  preserved  by  Eusebius,  is 
represented  by  that  historian  as  speaking  of  several  persons  as 
bishops  of  particular  churches.  Poly  crates,  also,  who  lived  about  the 
year  180,  and  of  whose  writings  we  have  nothing  except  a  fragment 
or  two,  preserved  by  a  writer  who  lived  long  after  him,  simply 
says,  that  Timothy  was  ordained  bishop  of  Ephesus,  by  the  great 
Paul;  speaks  of Poly carp  as  bishop  of  Smyrna;  and  of  himself 
and  six  others,  as  having  been  bishops  of  Ephesus,  in  succession, 
after  Timothy.  And  Hegesippus,  contemporary  with  Polycrates, 
of  whom  nothing  remains,  but  a  few  detached  sentences,  recorded 
by  Eusebius,  only  says  that  one  Primus  was  bishop[of  Corinth  ;  that 
Anicetus,  Soter,  and  Eleutherius  were  successively  bishops  of 
Rome;  and  that  James  was  constituted  bishop  of  Jerusalem, 
because  he  was  the  Lord's  near  kinsman.  But  what  is  the  amount 
of  this  testimony  ?  It  is  really  too  frivolous  to  be  treated  with  re- 
spect. What  Presbyterian  ever  doubted  that  there  were  bishops, 
in  the  primitive  church ;  not  only  in  Jerusalem,  Ephesus,  Corinth, 
and  Rome,  but  also  in  every  other  city  or  town  on  the  globe,  where 
a  congregation  of  Christians  was  organized  ?  And  when  it  has  not 
only  been  demonstrated,  but  also  acknowledged  by  our  opponents, 
that  the  word  bishop  was  applied,  in  the  days  of  the  apostles,  and 
for  a  considerable  time  afterwards,  to  those  who  were  not  prelates, 
it  is  really  something  worse  than  trifling,  still  to  insist  upon  an 
argument  founded  upon  an  equivocal  title,  and  only  calculated  to 
insult  the  discerning,  or  to  deceive  the  unwary. 

But  why  did  Dr.  Eowden  mention  the  testimony  of  three  fathers 

only,  as  having  been  omitted  ?  Why  did  he  not  enumerate  Bachyl- 

s  of  Corinth,  Seropion,  and  others,  in  the  second  century,  who 


TESTIMONY  OF  THE  FATHERS.  317 

are  represented  as  having  left  writings,  in  which,  though  now  lost, 
the  word  bishop  was  found  ?  The  truth  is,  I  considered  all  this 
testimony  as  vague  and  irrelevant ;  and  am  still  confident,  that  in 
the  selection  of  testimony  from  the  fathers  of  the  first  two  centuries, 
which  I  professed  to  make,  I  did  full  justice  to  the  episcopal  side 
of  the  question.  There  was  no  passage  omitted  which  can  be  con- 
sidered as  speaking  more  forcibly  in  their  favour,  than  several 
which  were  exhibited  ;  nor  any  which  wear,  in  my  opinion,  so 
plausible  an  aspect,  as  some  which  I  candidly  brought  forward. 
Nor  can  I  believe  that  Dr,  Bowden  would  have  complained  so 
^oudly  of  the  omission  of  testimony,  had  he  not  felt  that  every  scrap 
which  bears  the  most  distant  appearance  of  plausibility,  is  neces- 
sary to  assist  his  cause. 

With  respect  to  another  charge  of  Dr.  Bowden,  that  I  have 
omitted  to  produce  certain  testimony  from  some  of  the  fathers  of 
the  third  and  fourth  centuries,  it  is  scarcely  worthy  of  an  answer. 
In  entering  on  this  part  of  the  controversy  in  my  former  letters,  I 
made  the  following  explicit  declaration  : 

"  In  examining  the  writings  of  the  fathers,  I  shall  admit  only  the 
"  testimony  of  those  who  wrote  within  the  FIRST  TWO  CENTURIES. 
"  Immediately  after  this  period  so  many  corruptions  began  to  creep 
"  into  the  church  ;  so  many  of  the  most  respectable  Christian  wri- 
"  ters  are  known  to  have  been  heterodox  in  their  opinions;  so  much 
<(  evidence  appears,  that  even  before  the  commencement  of  the 
"  third  century,  the  papacy  began  to  exhibit  its  pretensions  ;  and 
"  such  multiplied  proofs  of  wide  spreading  degeneracy  crowd  into 
"  view,  that  the  testimony  of  every  subsequent  writer  is  to  be  re- 
"  ceived  with  suspicion.  Besides,  if  diocesan  episcopacy  existed, 
"  and  were  ofthe  fundamental  importance  that  our  episcopal  breth- 
"  ren  make  it  to  be,  we  may  surely  expect  to  find  some  reference 
"  to  it  in  the  records  of  two  hundred  years  ;  and  especially  when 
"  we  consider  that  those  were  years  of  the  greatest  simplicity  and 
"  purity  ever  known  to  the'church."  After  such  a  declaration, 
who  would  have  expected  to  find  it  imputed  to  me,  as  an  unfair 
proceeding,  that  I  had  not  exhibited  the  whole  testimony  of  the 
fathers  ofthe  third  and  fourth  centuries;  especially  after  conceding, 
in  the  most  unequivocal  manner,  that  clerical  imparity  had  begun 
to  appear  in  the  third,  and  was  established  in  the  fourth  century  ? 


318  LETTER  V. 

But  I  forbear.  To  take  up  your  time  in  replying  to  cavils  of  this 
nature,  even  if  one  had  patience  enough  for  the  purpose,  would  be 
equally  irksome  and  useless. 

In  my  former  letters,  I  omitted  to  examine  the  testimony  of  the 
Apostolical  Canons,  and  the  Apostolical  Constitutions  ;  and  assign- 
ed as  a  reason  for  the  omission  that  I  considered  them  as  spurious 
and  unworthy  of  credit.  With  this  omission,  and  the  reason  for  it, 
Dr.  Bowden  is  much  dissatisfied.  He  does  not,  indeed,  attempt 
to  establish  the  authenticity  of  the  Apostolical  Constitutions  ;  but 
for  that  of  the  Canons  he  contends  with  ardent  zeal.  He  charges 
me  with  having  "vilified"  them;  and  thinks,  if  I  had  ever  read 
Beveridge's  defence  of  them,  I  should  have  been  more  "  cautious" 
and  (t  modest."  I  beg  leave  to  inform  my  "  learned"  antagonist, 
that  I  am  not  an  entire  stranger  to  Beveridge's  work,  and  that 
after  weighing  his  arguments  as  impartially  as  I  can,  I  am  still  so 
"  incautious"  and  "  immodest"  as  to  believe  that  these  Canons 
are  not  what  they  profess  to  be.  Beveridge  himself  does  not  con- 
tend that  they  were  made  by  the  apostles;  and  Dr.  Bowden 
acknowledges  the  same  thing.  They  are  not,  therefore,  Apostoli- 
cal Canons.  The  learned  Daille  is  of  the  opinion  that  they  were 
not  compiled  till  ihejifth  century ;  Blondel  dates  their  compilation 
towards  the  close  of  the  third  century  ;  and  even  Beveridge  him- 
self, their  most  partial  defender,  supposes  them  to  be  the  decrees 
of  synods  in  the  second  and  third  centuries,  collected  at  different 
times,  and  by  different  hands.  Now,  so  far  as  they  belong  to  the 
third  century,  the  line  which  I  have  drawn  excludes  them  from  my 
notice.  When  Dr.  Bowden  can  decide  which  of  them  were  formed 
in  the  second  century,  and  which  of  them  are  of  a  later  date,  I  shall 
consider  myself  as  bound  by  my  plan  to  examine  the  former  class, 
and  not  before. 

But,  if  I  do  not  mistake,  some  imputations  may  be  brought 
against  both  the  "caution"  and  the  "modesty"  of  Dr.  Bowden 
himself,  in  this  business.  It  would  be  easy  to  produce  a  number 
of  episcopal  writers,  of  the  highest  reputation  for  talents  and  learn- 
ing, who  have,  without  ceremony,  pronounced  the  Apostolical 
Canons,  as  well  as  the  Apostolical  Constitutions,  to  be  destitute  of 
authenticity.  Dr.  B.  certainly  could  not  have  been  acquainted  with 
these  writers,  of  his  own  church  ;  as  it  is  not  supposabJe  that  he 


TESTIMONY  OF  THE  FATHERS.  319 

would  set  up  his  judgment  in  opposition  to  theirs.  Among  others 
Bishop  Taylor,  who  was  at  least  as  competent  a  judge  as  Dr. 
B.  speaks  of  the  writings  in  question  in  the  following  language  : 

"  Even  of  the  fifty  (canons)  which  are  most  respected,  it  is  evi- 
"  dent  that  there  are  some  things  so  mixed  with  them,  and  no  mark 
"  of  difference  left,  that  the  credit  of  all  is  much  impaired;  insomuch 
"  that  Isidore,  of  Seville,  says,  <  they  were  apocryphal,  made  by 
"  heretics,  and  published  under  the  title  apostolical ;  but  neither 
"  the  fathers  nor  the  church  of  Eome  did  give  assent  to  them.'  "*  \ 

Dr.  Bowden  not  only  charges  me  with  omitting  to  state  the  testi- 
mony of  some  fathers,  but  also  with  misrepresenting  that  of  others. 
Most  of  the  instances  which  he  produces  in  support  of  this  charge, 
do  not  appear  to  me  entitled  to  any  reply.  Of  a  few,  however,  it 
may  be  proper  to  take  a  cursory  notice. 

He  asserts  that  I  have  misrepresented  the  testimony  of  Ignatius  ; 
but  wherein  does  this  misrepresentation  consist  ?  Dr.  Bowden  will 
not  dare  to  deny  that  my  quotations  from  that  father  are  larger  and 
more  numerous  than  his  ownj  nor  will  he  dare  to  deny,  that  I  have 
selected,  and  fairly  exhibited,  those*  very  quotations  which  high 
churchmen  have  generally  adduced  as,  in  their  view,  most  decisive 
in  favour  of  prelacy.  In  what  respect,  then,  have  I  been  guilty  of 
misrepresentation  ?  He  will  probably  reply  that  my  comments  on 
the  testimony  of  Ignatius  are  unfair.  The  best  answer  to  this 
charge  will  be  a  dispassionate  review  of  those  comments  ;  and  I 
will  venture  to  say,  that  no  one  who  takes  this  trouble,  will  find 
any  thing  in  them  but  what  is  natural,  probable,  and  abundantly 
warranted  by  the  strain  of  the  testimony  itself. 

Ignatius,  indeed,  speaks  much  of  bishops.  But  I  have  shown 
that  this  title  furnishes  no  ground  of  argument  in  favour  of  prelacy. 
He  speaks  much,  too,  of  bishops,  presbyters,  and  deacons,  as  dis- 
tinguished from  each  other :  but  I  have  also  clearly  shown  that 
this  distinction  is  perfectly  consistent  with  our  doctrine  of  minis- 
terial parity  ;  and  that  to  represent  it  in  a  different  light,  is  a  mere 
begging  of  the  question  in  dispute.  But  I  will  go  further,  and 
again  venture,  with  greater  confidence  than  ever,  to  repeat  my  for- 
mer assertion,  that  the  bishop  so  often  mentioned  by  Ignatius  is 
evidently  a  parochial  and  not  a  diocesan  bishop.  If  the  bishop  to 
whom  this  father  refers,  was  the  only  person,  in  each  church,  em- 

*  Liberty  of  prophesying,  Sect.  5,  Art.  9. 


320  LETTER  V. 

powered  to  baptize,  and  administer  the  Lord's  supper  ;  if  no  mar- 
riage could  take  place  without  his  knowledge  and  consent ;  if  it 
was  considered  as  his  duty  to  be  personally  acquainted  with  all 
his  flock,  to  take  notice  with  his  own  eye  of  those  who  were  pre- 
sent and  absent  at  the  time  of  public  worship,  to  attend  to  the 
widows  and  the  poor  of  his  congregation,  to  seek  out  all  by  name, 
and  not  to  overlook  even  the  men  and  maid-servants  of  the  flock 
committed  to  his  charge ;  then,  surely,  no  man  in  his  senses  can 
suppose  that  this  officer  could  have  been  any  other  than  a  paro- 
chial bishop  or  pastor.  I  know  that  Dr.  Bowden  is  of  the  opinion, 
and  endeavours  to  show,  that  the  duties  which  I  have  stated,  are 
not  all  represented  by  Ignatius  as  belonging  to  his  bishop.  I  do 
not  consider  it  as  worth  while  to  take  up  your  time  in  discussing 
this  point.  Let  any  one  look  over  the  epistles  of  Ignatius,  or  if  he 
cannot  have  access  to  them,  let  him  look  over  the  extracts  which  I 
have  given  in  my  former  letters,  including  those  on  which  Dr.  B. 
lays  the  greatest  stress,  and  then  let  him  say  whether  it  is  possible 
to  reconcile  the  whole  strain  and  language  of  that  venerable  father 
with  any  other  than  parochial  or  Presbyterian  episcopacy  ?  For 
my  part,  though  Dr.  B.  very  delicately  loads  this  suggestion  with 
the  terms  "  nonsense,"  "  contemptible  puerility,"  &c.  I  am  per- 
suaded every  impartial  reader  will  say,  it  is  both  sounder  sense, 
and  better  logic,  than  this  gentleman,  with  all  his  "  scholar-like" 
management,  has  drawn  from  the  testimony  of  the  pious  martyr. 
In  short,  Dr.  Bowden  may  fume  and  fret  as  long  and  as  much  as 
he  pleases,  but,  after  all  that  he  has  said,  or  can  say,  nothing  intelli- 
gible can  be  made  of  the  bishop,  presbyters,  and  deacons  of  that 
father,  materially  different  from  the  pastor,  elders,  and  deacons  of 
every  regularly  organized  Presbyterian  church. 

Dr.  Bowden  supposes  that  Presbyterians  consider  the  bishop  so 
often  mentioned  by  Ignatius,  in  no  other  light  than  as  the  mode- 
rator of  some  ecclesiastical  assembly.  Assuming  this  as  our  opi- 
nion, he  attempts  to  pour  ridicule  upon  it,  by  substituting  the 
word  moderator  for  bishop,  and  endeavouring  to  show  that  the 
supposition  is  utterly  inconsistent  with  the  representation  given  of 
the  duties  of  this  officer.  When  a  man  does  not  comprehend  the 
subject  which  he  attempts  to  ridicule,  he  is  extremely  apt  to  draw 
upon  himself  the  laughter  which  he  thought  to  turn  against  others. 
This  is  the  unfortunate  situation  of  Dr.  Bowden.  He  seizes  upon 
a  detached  fragment  of  Presbyterian  doctrine ;  and,  imagining  that 


TESTIMONY  OF  THE  FATHERS.  321 

he  sees  and  understands  the  whole  system,  he  thinks  to  involve 
that  system,  in  the  absurdity  which  he  makes  to  recoil  upon  his 
own. 

Dr.  Bowden  ought  to  know,  that  bishop  and  moderator  are  not 
convertible  terms ;  and  that  they  are  not  so  considered  by  Presby- 
terians. We  suppose,  and  believe  it  is  easy  to  prove,  that  the 
word  bishop,  in  the  apostolic  age,  signified,  simply,  the  pastor  or 
overseer  of  a  flock,  or  single  congregation.  Accordingly  we  con- 
clude that  there  were  several  organized  churches  both  at  Ephe&us 
and  Philippi,  in  the  days  of  the  apostles,  because  the  scriptures 
expressly  tell  us  that,  at  that  time,  there  were  several  bishops  in 
both  those  cities.  We  have  shown,  too,  that  each  church,  in  the 
days  of  the  apostles,  was  commonly  furnished  with  a  bench  of 
ruling  elders,  and  deacons.  We  have  also  reason  to  believe,  that, 
in  large  congregations,  there  were  several  elders  who,  as  assistants, 
laboured  in  the  word  and  doctrine.  The  pastor,  that  is  the  pres- 
byter who  was  particularly  invested  with  the  pastoral  charge,  was 
called  the  bis/iop  of  that  church ;  and  when  the  elders  came  to- 
gether, and  sat  as  a  church  session,  or  ecclesiastical  court,  he,  of 
course,  presided  as  their  moderator.  It  is  easy  to  perceive,  how- 
ever, that  this  bishop  was  equally  such,  both  in  fact,  and  in  name, 
whether  he  was  ever  called  to  act  as  moderator  or  not.  The  mere 
circumstance  of  his  having  no  bench  of  elders,  and  no  church 
session  in  which  to  preside,  did  not  destroy  or  afiect  his  pastoral 
character.  We  maintain,  that  there  was  no  other  species  of  bishop, 
during  the  time  of  the  apostles,  than  such  as  has  been  described, 
that  is,  the  pastor  of  a  single  flock  or  church. 

But  we  suppose  that,  very  early  after  the  apostle's  days,  when 
the  congregations,,  and,  of  course,  the  pastors,  in  large  cities, 
became  numerous,  and  frequently  convened  for  the  transaction  of 
ecclesiastical  business,  that  the  custom  was  adopted  of  choosing 
one  person,  generally  the  most  aged  and  venerable  of  the  number, 
to  act  as  president,  chairman,  or  moderator,  and  that,  after  a  while, 
the  title  of  bishop  was,  by  way  of  eminence  conferred  on  him  5 
and,  in  process  of  time,  gradually  appropriated  to  him.  Hence  it 
is  a  notorious  fact,  which  our  episcopal  brethren  do  not  pretend  to 
deny,  that  bishops,  in  the  second  and  third  centuries,  were  frequent- 
ly distinguished  by  the  titles,  PRESIDENT,  CHAIRMAN,  and  the 
person  who  filed  the  FIRST  SEAT  in  the  presbytery.  But  this 
2  S 


222  LETTER  V. 

no  more  implied,  nor,  at  that  time,  was  considered  as  implying,  a 
superiority  of  rank  or  order,  on  the  part  of  the  chairman)  than  the 
office  of  moderator  in  one  of  our  presbyteries  or  synods,  clothes 
the  pastor  who  fills  it  with  a  permanent  superiority  of  order  over 
his  brethren, 

In  some  cities,  however,  it  is  evident  that  a  different  plan  was 
pursued.  When  the  converts  to  the  Christian  faith  became  so 
numerous,  that  they  were  no  longer  able  to  worship  in  one  assem- 
bly ;  and  especially  when  a  number  of  persons  from  the  neigh- 
bouring villages  joined  the  city  church,  some  of  these  members  be" 
gan  to  lay  plans  for  forming  separate  and  smaller  congregations 
nearer  home.  To  this  the  bishop  consented,  on  condition  that  the 
little  worshipping  societies  thus  formed  should  consider  themselves 
as  still  under  his  pastoral  care,  as  amenable  to  the  parent  church, 
and  as  bound  to  obey  him  as  their  spiritual  guide.  When  the 
pastor  agreed  to  this  arrangement,  it  was  generally  understood, 
that  there  should  be  but  one  communion  table,  and  one  bapistery 
in  the  city  or  parish  ;  and,  of  course,  that  when  the  members  of 
these  neighbouring  societies  wished  to  receive  either  of  the  sacra- 
ments, they  were  to  attend  at  the  parent  church,  and  receive  them 
from  the  hands  of  the  pastor  or  bishop  himself.  The  ordinary 
services  of  public  worship  on  the  Lord's  day,  were  performed  at 
little  oratories,  or  chapels  of  ease,  planted  at  .different  and  con- 
venient places  within  the  parish  ;  and  on  these,  it  was  considered 
as  sufficient  for  the  assistant  preachers,  or  curates,  to  attend.  But 
at  special  seasons,  at  least  once  or  twice  in  the  year,  every  church 
member  was  held  under  obligations  to  attend  the  mother  church, 
and  commune  with  the  pastor  himself.  This  was  laying  the  foun- 
dation for  the  authority  of  one  bishop  or  pastor  over  several 
distinctly  organized  congregations,  which,  not  long  afterwards,  was 
claimed  and  yielded. 

We  have  specimens  of  a  similar  arrangement  in  modern  times. 
Fifteen  years  ago  all  the  episcopal  inhabitants  of  the  city  of  New 
York,  were  under  the  pastoral  care  of  the  rector  of  Trinity  Church. 
In  the  beginning,  that  rector  had  only  one  church  under  his  inspec- 
tion, and  was  himself  the  only  preacher  in  it.  But  when  a  second 
and  a  third  were  built,  and  a  large  congregation  established  in" 
each,  it  was  still  thought  proper  to  retain  the  whole  under  the 
care  of  one  pastor  with  several  assistants  ;  so  that  when  there 


TESTIMONY  OF  THE  FATHERS.  323 

were  three  episcopal  churches,  and  probably  from  eight  to  ten 
thousand  Episcopalians  in  the  city,  there  was  still  but  one  rector 
over  the  whole,  with  a  number  of  assistant  clergymen,  who  were 
considered,  and  treated  as  officially  subordinate  to  him.  Yet  these 
assistant  clergymen  had,  in  reality,  the  same  ordination  with  their 
rector  ;  were  as  perfectly  qualified  as  himself,  to  take  a  reclorate 
or  pastoral  chargej  without  any  new  ordination  ;  and  were  of  the 
same  ecclesiastical  order,  although,  as  long  as  they  retained  this 
relation  to  him,  they  were  his  clergy,  and  were  under  his  control 
in  all  their  professional  services.  The  whole  city  was,  to  all 
intents  and  purposes,  one  parish,  and  the  rector  its  ecclesiastical 
head. 

That  an  arrangement  substantially  of  this  kind  was  frequent  in 
the  second  and  third  centuries,  is  not  merely  a  supposition  of 
mine  ;  but  is  asserted  by  a  number  of  the  best  informed  and  most 
able  advocates  of  prelacy.  The  learned  Mede,  a  zealous  episco- 
pal divine,  in  his  Discourse  on  Churches,  p.  48.  says, '«  Nay,  more 
"  than  this,  it  should  seem  that  in  those  first  times,  before  dioceses 
"  were  divided  into  those  lesser  and  subordinate  churches,  which 
"  \ve  now  call  parishes,  and  presbyters  assigned  to  them,  they  had 
"  only  one  altar  to  a  church,  taking  church  for  the  company  or 
«  corporation  of  the  faithful,  united  under  one  bishop  or  pastor  ; 
"  and  that  was  in  the  city  or  place  where  the  bishop  had  his  see 
"  and  residence.  Unless  this  were  so,  whence  came  it  else,  that  a 
"  schismatical  bishop  was  said,  constituere  or  collocare  aliud  al- 
"  tare  ?  And  that  a  bishop  and  an  altar  are  made  correlatives  ?" 

The  same  fact  is  asserted  by  Bishop  Stillingjleet,  in  his  sermon 
against  separation.  "  Though,  when  the  churches  increased," 
says  he,  "  the  occasional  meetings  were  frequent  in  several 
"  places  $  yet  still  there  was  but  one  church  ;  and  one  altar,  and 
"  one  baptistery,  and  one  bishop,  with  many  presbyters  assisting 
"  him.  Which,  is  so  plain,  in  antiquity,  as  to  the  churches  plant- 
"  ed  by  the  apostles/  themselves,  that  none  but  a  great  stranger  to 
"  the  history  of  the  church  can  call  it  in  question.  'Tis  true, 
"  after  some  time,  in  the  greater  cities,  they  had  distinct  places 
"  allotted,  and  presbyters  fixed  among  them.  And  such  allotments 
"  were  called  Tituli  at  Rome,  and  Laurce  at  Alexandria,  and 
"  Parishes  in  other  places.  But  these  were  never  thought,  then,  to 
"  be  new  churches,  or  to  have  any  independent  government  in 


324  LETTER  V. 

"  themselves,  but  were  all  in  subjection  to  the  bishop  and  his 
"  college  of  presbyters  ;  of  which  multitudes  of  examples  might  be 
"  brought  from  the  most  authentic  testimonies  of  antiquity,  if  a 
"  thing  so  evident  needed"  any  proof  at  all.  And  yet  this  distri- 
"  but  ion  (into  distinct  Tituli]  even  in  cities,  was  looked  on  as  so 
"  uncommon  in  those  elder  times,  that  Epiphanius  takes  notice  of 
"  it  as  an  extraordinary  thing  at  Alexandria;  and,  therefore,  it  is 
"  probably  supposed  that  there  was  no  such  thing  in  all  the  cities 
"  of  Crete  in  his  time.7' 

Accordingly  Ignatius,  in  his  epistle  to  the  Philadelphians 
declares,  "  There  is,  to  every  church,  one  altar,  and  one  bishop." 
And  he  elsewhere  represents  it  as  a  characteristic  of  the  unity  of  a 
church,  that  there  is  one  altar,  and  one  bishop  in  each.  Cyprian, 
in  like  manner,  repeatedly  speaks  of  setting  up  a  new  altar,  or 
communion  table  within  the  parish  or  diocese  of  a  pastor,  without 
his  leave,  as  irregular  and  schismatical.  These  facts  perfectly 
agree  with  the  declaration  made  by  several  of  the  fathers,  that 
administering  the  ordinance  of  baptism  was  considered  as  the 
appropriate  work  of  the  bishop  within  the  bounds  of  his  church  ; 
and  also  that  the  members  of  each  church  received  the  Lord's 
supper  from  no  other  hands  than  those  of  their  bishop.  Accord- 
ingly Dr.  Hammond,  a  zealous  friend  of  prelacy,  expressly  affirms, 
that  in  the  days  of  Tertullian,  all  Christians  received  the  eucharist 
from  no  other  than  the  bishop's  hands  ;*  and  Dr.  Heylin,  an 
Episcopalian  of  still  higher  tone,  distinctly  acknowledges  the  same 
fact.t  To  suppose  that  these  representations  are  consistent  with 
the  episcopal  arrangement,  in  which  a  number  of  distinct  and 
independent  congregations,  each  supplied  with  a  pastor  or  rector, 
are  all  under  the  government  of  a  prelate,  in  the  habit  of  visiting 
each  congregation  once  or  twice  every  year,  is  manifestly  absurd. 
They  can  only  be  reconciled  with  a  system  in  which,  as  in  the 
Presbyterian  church,  the  pastor  or  bishop  is  made  overseer  of  a 
single  flock  or  church ;  is  ordinarily  the  sole  dispenser  of  the 
word  and  ordinances  in  that  church ;  and  must  be  consulted,  and 
his  leave  directly  or  indirectly  obtained,  when  others  attempt  to 
dispense  them  within  his  parish. 

*  Dissertat,  iii.  Cap.  vii.  §  5. 

t  History  of  Episcopacy,  Part  ii.  p.  96,  97. 


TESTIMONY  OF  THE  FATHERS.  335 

.  We  are  now  prepared  to  determine  what  kind  of  bishop  Ignatius 
was,  and  in  what  sense  the  other  contemporary  pastors  were 
addressed  by  that  father  under  this  title.  If  we  suppose  that  in 
each  of  the  cities  of  Antioch,  Smyrna,  8cc.  there  was  only  a  single 
congregation  of  Christians,  then  the  case  is  plain.  Those  venera- 
ble ministers  were  only  pastors  or  bishops  of  single  flocks,  in  per- 
fect conformity  with  the  Presbyterian  model.  But  let  us  suppose 
that  there  were  several  large  worshipping  assemblies  of  Christians 
in  each  of  those  cities.  It  is  true,  the  epistles  of  Ignatius  do  not 
give  the  least  hint,  that  this  was  the  case  ;  and  we  only  infer  it, 
from  probable  evidence,  derived  from  other  sources,  without  being 
able,  on  either  side,  to  establish  or  to  disprove  the  fact.  Let  it  be 
admitted,  however,  that  there  were  several  worshipping  assemblies 
in  each  of  these  cities ;  still  this  fact  proves  nothing  in  favour  of 
prelacy.  Their  pastors  might  each  have  had  several  congregations 
under  their  care,  and  several  clergymen  to  assist  them,  without 
being  prelates,  any  more  than  the  rector  of  Trinity  Church  thirty 
years  ago  was  a  prelate.  But  we  may  go  even  further.  Suppose 
it  abundantly  proved,  that  in  the  days  of  Ignatius,  there  were 
established  in  each  of  the  cities  of  Antioch,  Smyrna,  8fc.  a  number 
of  separate  and  distinctly  organized  congregations,  and  that  each 
was  under  the  care  of  a  pastor.  And  suppose  it  further  proved 
that,  notwithstanding  this  Ignatius  was,  by  way  of  eminence 
styled  bishop  of  Antioch,  and  Poly  carp  bishop  of  Smyrna  ;  still 
the  fact,  even  if  established,  would  be  perfectly  consistent  with 
Presbyterian  parity.  We  have  only  to  suppose  these  men  were 
moderators  of  the  respective  presbyteries  of  those  cities,  and  all 
is  natural,  intelligible,  and  probable.  In  this  case,  we  may  con- 
sider all  the  instructions  concerning  bishops  and  their  flocks,  which 
the  epistles  in  question  contain,  as  merely  conveyed  through  the 
medium  of  the  senior  or  presiding  pastor,  to  his  colleagues,  and  as 
intended  equally  for  all.  Thus  it  appears  that  the  epistles  of 
Ignatius  do  not,  on  any  supposition,  contain  a  sentence  which  can 
be  legitimately  construed  in  favour  of  prelacy ;  and  that  all  the 
confidence  of  my  opponents  in  asserting  the  contrary,  is  ground- 
less and  futile. 

Dr.  Bowden  is  equally  positive,  that  I  have  misrepresented  the 
testimony  of  Iren&us.  Here  again  I  beg  of  you  impartially  to 
review  the  extracts  which  I  gave  from  the  writings  of  that  father 


326  LETTER  V. 

and  my  comments  upon  them,  together  with  all  that  Dr.  B.  has 
said  on  the  subject;  and  then  to  decide  between  us.  It  is  plain, 
and  Dr.  B.  does  not  deny,  that  Irenceus  speaks  of  certain  persons, 
by  name,  as  presbyters,  and  represents  them  as  successors  of  the 
apostles.  It  is  equally  plain,  that  he  speaks  of  the  same  persons, 
in  another  place,  as  bishops,  and  under  that  title  also,  represents 
them  as  having  the  succession  from  the  apostles.  He  does  this,  not 
once  merely,  but  several  times,  and  with  as  much  point,  and  appa- 
rent care,  as  if  his  grand  object  had  been  to  show  that  presbyters 
and  bishops  were  then  the  same.  The  argument  arising  from  this 
language  is  obviously  in  our  favour.  Dr.  Bowden,  indeed,  thinks 
otherwise,  and  makes  an  attempt  to  answer  it ;  but  his  embarrass- 
ment, and  inability  to  accomplish  his  purpose,  must  be  apparent 
to  every  reader. 

Dr.  Bowden  lays  much  stress  on  a  passage  in  Irenceus,  in  which 
he  speaks  of  these  persons,  whom  he  alternately  calls  bishops  and 
presbyters,  as  succeeding  the  apostles  in  their  mastership.  What 
is  mastership  ?  Simply  official  authority.  And  what  has  this  to 
do  with  prelacy  ?  Nothing.  Suppose  a  Presbyterian  were  to  say, 
"  The  bishops  of  our  church  are  the  successors  of  the  apostles,  and 
"  succeed  to  as  much  of  their  authority  or  mastership,  as  was  in- 
"  tended  to  be  perpetual  in  the  church  :"  would  any  intelligent 
person  who  heard  him,  imagine  that  he  was  speaking  a  language 
either  favourable  to  diocesan  episcopacy,  or  hostile  to  his  own 
principles  ?  Certainly  not.  And  yet  this  language  coincides,  in 
every  essential  point,  with  that  of  Irenceus. — Dr.  Bowden  seems 
not  to  understand,  or  perpetually  to  forget,  that  we  consider  our 
pastors  or  bishops  as  the  true  and  proper  successors  of  the  apos- 
tles, so  far  as  their  office  was  ordinary  and  intended  to  be  trans- 
mitted ;  and  that  we  consider  them  as  invested  with  the  highest 
authority,  or  (if  he  prefer  the  word,)  mastership  in  the  church. 

But  that  part  of  the  testimony  of  Irenceus  to  which  Dr.  Bowden 
attaches  the  greatest  importance,  is?  that  he  represents  the  succes- 
sion in  the  church  of  Rome  as  flowing  through  single  ministers, 
whom,  he  styles  bishops ;  although  we  have  reason  to  believe  that 
there  were  many  presbyters  connected  with  the  church  in  that  city. 
Now,  if  there  were  a  number  of  bishops,  in  our  sense  of  the  word, 
in  Rome,  how,  it  is  asked,  could  Irenceus  trace  the  line  of  succes- 
sion through  single  persons  only  ?  In  other  words,  why  does  he 


TESTIMONY  OF  THE  FATHERS.  327 

single  out  Linus,  Anacletus,  Clemens,  and  Evaristus,  as  successive- 
ly bishops  of  Rome,  when,  according  to  our  doctrine,  there  were 
pretty  certainly,  a  number  of  contemporary  ministers  iiMhat  church, 
of  the  same  rank  with  those  whose  names  are  mentioned  ?  I  answer, 
this  statement  of  Irenceus  is  not  to  be  relied  on  ;  and  if  it  were,  it 
is  nothing  to  the  purpose. 

I  say,  the  statement  of  this  father,  respecting  the  succession  in 
the  church  of  Rome,  is  not  to  be  relied  upon.  He  says  that  Anac- 
letus was  before  Clemens,  and  next  to  Linus.  Tertullian  and  seve- 
sal  others  assure  us  that  Clemens  was  next  to  Peter,  and,  of  course, 
before  Anacletus.     Epiphanius  and  Optatus  say  that  Anadetus 
and  Cletus  were  before  Clemens.    While  Jerome,  Augustine,  Da- 
masus,  and  others,  assert  that  Anacletus,  Cletus,  and  Linus,  were 
all  antecedent  to  Clemens.     Here  is  perfect  confusion.     It  is  evi- 
dent that  these  writers  were  guided  by  vague  and  contradictory 
traditions,  and  knew  nothing  of  the  matter.     The  probability,  from 
the  very  face  of  the  story,  is  that  the  bishops  or  pastors  of  whom 
they  speak,  did  not  all  sit  in  the  pastoral  chair  of  Rome  singly,  and 
in  succession,  but  several  of  them  together.     Accordingly,  Dama- 
sus,  in  his  work  De  Gestis  Pontificum,  hath  these  words :  "  St. 
"  Peter  ordained  two  bishops,  Linus  and  Cletus,  who,  in  their  own 
"  persons,  should  perform  all  sacred  offices  to  the  Roman  people." 
It  is  true  these  words  are  not  to  be  found  in  the  printed  editions  of 
that  work  ;  but  they  are  in  all  the  manuscript  copies,  and  so  they 
are  cited  by  Marianus  Scotus,  as  the  learned  Vossius  assures  us  ; 
who  adds,  "  That  the  succession  of  bishops  at  Rome,  in  a  single 
'*  person,  began  under  Evaristus.     Before  his  time  two  or  three 
"  sat  together.'7*     The  learned  Junius,  also,  an  illustrious  reform- 
er of  Holland,  nearly  contemporary  with   Luther,  speaking  of  the 
contradictory  testimony  of  the  fathers,  respecting  the  succession  of 
the  first  bishops  or  pastors  of  Rome,  delivers  the  following  decisive 
opinion.     "  These,  or  some  of  these,  were  presbyters  or  bishops 
"  of  Rome,  at  the  same  time,  ruling  the  church  in  common.    But 
"  the  following  writers,  fancying  to  themselves  such  bishops  as  had 
"  then  obtained  in  the  church,  fell  into  these  snares  of  tradition, 
"  because  they  supposed,  according  to  the  custom  of  their  own 

*  OWEN'S  History  of  Ordination,  Chap.  i.  Prop.  vii. 


328  LETTER    V. 

"  times,  that  there  could  be  but  one  bishop  in  one  church  at  the 
"  same  time."* 

But,  granting  that  there  is  no  mistake  in  the  testimony  of 
IrencBUs ;  granting  that  it  is  all  authentic  and  worthy  of  confid- 
ence ;  it  proves  nothing  inconsistent  with  the  doctrine  of  Pres- 
byterian parity.  What  though  the  pious  father  represents  a 
succession  of  single  persons  as  styled  bishops  in  the  church  of 
Rome  ?  They  might  have  been  the  senior  pastors  of  that  city,  or 
they  might  have  been  the  successive  moderators  of  the  city  pres- 
bytery. Or  a  few  names  might  have  been  selected  out  of  a  num- 
ber of  contemporary  ministers,  of  the  same  ecclesiastical  order,  on 
account  of  their  superior  age,  talents,  or  weight  of  character.  In 
short,  a  variety  of  suppositions  may  be  made  concerning  them,  all 
equally  reconcilable  with  Presbyterian  principles,  and  with  the 
language  of  Irenceus  ;  but  none  of  them  giving  the  least  counte- 
nance to  the  prelatical  doctrine  of  different  orders  of  clergy. 

But  the  most  extraordinary  charge  of  Dr.  B.  is  that  I  have  misre- 
presented and  perverted  the  testimony  of  Jerome.  He  insists  that 
Jerome  says  nothing,  which  can  be  justly  construed  as  intimating 
that  ministerial  parity  existed  in  the  apostolic  church ;  but  much 
of  a  directly  opposite  import.  With  a  man  who  can  persist  in 
assertions  of  this  kind,  in  the  face  of  evidence  so  clear  and  indu- 
bitable, it  is  vain  to  reason.  Let  me  request  you,  brethren,  again, 
to  review  the  long  and  faithful  extracts  from  the  writings  of  this 
father,  which  are  contained  in  theffth  of  my  former  letters,  and 
then  decide  whether  it  is  possible  for  sophistry  itself  to  set  aside 
testimony  so  full  and  positive.  What  does  Jerome  say  ?  Instead 
of  speaking  "  obscurely,"  or  "  doubtfully,"  as  Dr.  B.  alleges,  his 
declarations  on  this  point  are  absolutely  among  the  most  express 
and  unequivocal  passages  to  be  found  on  any  subject,  in  all  an- 
tiquity !  He  says,  in  so  many  words,  that  in  the  beginning,  "  Not 
"  only  in  his  opinion,  but  also  in  that  of  scripture,  bishop  and 
"  presbyter  were  the  same,  the  one  being  the  name  of  age,  the 
"  other  of  office." — And  again,  among  the  ancients,  presbyters 
"  and  bishops  were  the  same." — And  again,  "  A  presbyter  is  the 
"  same  as  a  bishop ;  and  before  there  were,  by  the  devil's  influ- 

*  JUHII  Controv.  Lib  ii.  Cap.  5.  Not.  18. 


TESTIMONY  OF  THE  FATHERS.  329 

"  ence,  parties  in  religion,  the  churches  were  governed  by  the 
«  common  council  of  presbyters."  To  prove  this,  he  formally 
quotes  passages  from  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  from  the  epistle  to 
the  Philippians,  from  the  epistles  to  Timothy  and  Titus,  from  the 
first  epistle  of  Peter,  and  from  the  second  and  third  epistles  of 
John  : — The  very  passages  which  are  generally  quoted  by  Pres- 
byterians in  favour  of  their  doctrine.  Jerome  further  declares  that 
afterwards  the  practice  was  introduced  of  placing  one  of  the 
presbyters  above  the  rest,  as  a  remedy  against  schism.  He  de- 
clares, expressly,  that  this  practice  was  brought  in  (paulatim)  by 
little  and  little.'9  He  asserts,  with  equal  explicitness,  that  "  bish- 
ops are  above  presbyters,  more  by  the  custom  of  the  church,  than 
by  the  appointment  of  Christ."  And  finally,  he  asserts  that  this 
departure  from  the  primitive  model,  owed  its  origin  to  the  decay 
of  religion,  and  especially  to  the  ambition  of  ministers.  It  com- 
menced "  When  every  one  began  to  think  that  those  whom  he 
baptized  were  rather  his  than  Christ's."  I  appeal  to  your  can- 
dour, my  brethren,  whether  any  thing  can  be  plainer  or  more 
decisive  than  this  language  ?  I  appeal  to  your  canddur,  whether 
the  man  who  is  capable  of  saying  that  these  are  "  obscure"  and 
"  doubtful"  passages,  can  be  safely  trusted  either  as  a  discerning  or 
an  impartial  judge. 

Dr.  Bowden,  indeed,  alleges,  that  these  "  obscure"  passages  from 
Jerome  are  more  than  counterbalanced  by  others,  in  which  he 
avowedly  maintains  the  apostolical  origin  of  prelacy.  But  where 
are  such  passages  to  be  found  in  that  father  ?  Dr.  B.  has  produced 
none  of  them ;  and  until  he  does  produce  them,  I  must  be  excused 
for  doubting  their  existence.  He  has  brought  forward,  it  is  true, 
seven  quotations,  each  of  which  he  tells  us  is  clear  and  pointed. 
But  no  person,  it  is  presumed,  excepting  Dr.  B.  himself,  can  see 
the  "  clearness,"  or  the  "  point"  of  any  one  of  the  number. 
Jerome,  it  seems,  asserts,  that  "  without  the  bishop's  command, 
"  neither  presbyter  nor  deacon  has  a  right  to  baptize."  He 
observes, "  That  the  scriptures  give  the  name  of  Princes  to  those 
"  who  should  be  bishops  of  the  church."  He  styles  Poly  carp, 
prince  of  Asia  ;*  and  asserts  that  he  was  "  made  bishop  of 

*  For  the  passage  in  which  Jerome  represents  Poly  carp  as  prince  of all 
Asia,  and  bishop  of  Smyrna,  Dr.  Bowden  refers  to  the  work  De  Scriptor. 
2  T 


330  LETTER  V. 

Smyrna  by  St.  John  himself."  Speaking  of  certain  differences 
between  the  catholic  churches,  and  those  of  the  Montanists,  he 
says,  "With  2/5,  the  bishops  hold  the  place  of  the  apostles  ;  with 
"  them  the  bishop  holds  the  third  place."  Again,  he  says,  it  is 
"  the  custom  of  the  church,  for  bishops  to  go  and  invoke  the  Holy 
"  Spirit  by  imposition  of  hands,  on  such  as  were  baptized  by  pres- 
"  byters  and  deacons,  in  villages  and  places  remote  from  the  mother 
"  church.  Do  you  ask,  where  this  is  written  ?  In  the  Acts  of  the 
"Apostles."  In  another  place  he  says,  "The  apostles  were  thy 
"  fathers  because  they  begat  thee ;  but  now  that  they  have  left 
"  the  world,  thou  hast  in  their  stead,  their  sons,  the  bishops."* 
And  finally,  in  his  Epistle  to  Evagrius}  he  remarks,  "  That  we 
"  may  know  that  the  apostolic  traditions  were  taken  from  the  Old 
"  Testament,  that  which  Aaron  and  his  sons}  and  the  Levites, 
"  were  in  the  temple,  let  the  bishops,  presbyters,  and  deacons, 
"  claim  to  themselves  in  the  church."  These  are  all  the  passages 
which  Dr.  Bowden  cites  with  so  much  exultation,  and  which  he 
considers  as  pointedly  asserting  the  apostolic  institution  of  prelacy. 
But  I  will  venture  to  pronounce,  that  there  is  not  one  of  these  pas- 
sages, which  can  be  considered  by  any  impartial  reader,  as  furnish- 
ing the  least  solid  ground  for  such  a  conclusion  ;  and  only  one  of 
the  whole  number  which  bears  even  the  semblance  of  an  argument 
to  this  effect. 

When  Jerome  says  that  bishops  come  in  the  place  of  apostles, 
and  hold  the  first  place  among  the  officers  of  the  church;  when  he 
remarks,  that  the  apostles  having  left  the  world,  we  have  the  bishops 
in  their  place ;  and  when  he  asserts  that  Polycarp  was  bishop  of 
Smyrna;  he  speaks  a  language  in  which  every  Presbyterian  is 
ready  to  join  him.  Is  it  possible  that  Dr.  Bowden  is  so  utterly 
unacquainted  with  our  principles,  as  not  to  know,  that  we  consider 
our  bishops  or  pastors,  as  the  true  and  proper  successors  of  the 
Apostles ;  and  as  holding  the  highest  official  station  in  the  Church  ? 

Ecdes.  Has  the  doctor  yet  to  learn  that  this  work  is  acknowle  dged  by 
the  ablest  episcopal  writers  to  be  interpolated  and  suspicious  ;  and  par- 
ticularly, that  they  have  acknowledged,  as  among  the  interpolations, 
several  passages  in  which  persons  are  mentioned  as  bishops  of  particular 
churches  in  the  apostolic  age. 

*  This  quotation  also  Dr.  Bowden  takes  from  the  adulterated  work,  De 
Script.  Ecdes. 


TESTIMONY  OF  THE  FATHERS.  331 

Did  he  ever  meet  with  a  Presbyterian  who  doubted  that  Polycarp 
had  a  pastoral  charge,  or,  in  other  words,  \vaszbishop  in  Smyrna? 
Again,  when  Jerome  says,  "Without  the  bishop's  command, 
"neither  presbyter  nor  deacon  has  a  right  to  baptize,"  he  evidently 
meant  to  assert  that  this  was  the  case  in  \\iefourth  century,  when 
he  lived.  But  did  any  Presbyterian  ever  deny  that  in  the  days  of 
Jerome,  prelacy  was  established  ?  The  criticism  which  Dr.  B. 
makes  on  the  word  right  (jus)  which  occurs  in  this  passage,  I 
pass  over  as  unworthy  of  his  good  sense,  and  as  undeserving  of 
reply.  Further,  when  Jerome  declares,  that  the  Scriptures  give  the 
name  of  princes  to  bishops,  and  when  he  asserts  that  Polycarp 
was  prince  of  all  Asia,  he  says  what  our  Episcopal  brethren 
themselves  acknowledge  to  be  falsehoods.  They  know  that  no 
such  official  title  is,  any  where  in  Scripture,  given  to  bishops;  and 
they  acknowledge  also  that  Polycarp  was  bishop  of  Smyrna  only, 
and  that  metropolitans  and  patriarchs  did  not  arise  until  a  consi- 
derable time  after  his  day.  When  Jerome  says,  "  It  is  the  custom 
"of  the  church  for  bishops  to  lay  their  hands  on  such  as  have  been 
"  baptized  by  presbyters  and  deacons,  and  to  invoke  the  Holy 
"  Spirit,"  he  asserts  nothing  more  than  that  it  was  the  custom  of 
the  church  in  his  day.  Who  doubts  this  ?  Do  we  not  all  know 
that,  before  the  time  of  Jerome,  the  rite  which  is  called  confirm- 
ation had  crept  into  the  church,  and  began  to  claim  apostolic  in- 
stitution ?  And  even  when  Jerome  refers  to  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles 
as  his  authority  for  this  custom,  it  is  nothing  to  the  purpose  as  to 
the  present  controversy ;  for  he  does  not  say,  that  the  persons  who 
laid  hands  on  baptized  persons  in  the  apostles' days  were  the  same 
kind  of  bishops  with  those  who  arrogated  to  themselves  that 
power  in  his  days.  Nay,  he  says,  in  another  place,  directly  the 
contrary.  And  finally,when  Jerome  remarks,  "  what  Aaron  and 
his  sons,  and  the  Levites  were  in  the  temple,  let  the  bishops, 
"presbyters,  and  deacons  claim  to  themselves  in  the  Church ;" 
and  when  he  speaks  of  this  parallel  as  an  apostolical  tradition, 
we  can  only  infer  from  his  language  the  well-known  fact,  that 
in  his  day,  high  churchmen  were  fond  of  comparing  the 
Christian  ministry  with  the  Jewish  priesthood;  of  endeavouring 
to  show  that  the  former  succeeded  to  the  grades,  titles,  and 
privileges  of  the  latter ;  and  of  pleading  apostolical  tradition  for 
this  doctrine.  It  is  known,  independent  of  any  testimony  from 


332  LETTER  V. 

Jerome,  that  this  was  the  fashionable  doctrine  and  language  of  his 
time ;  and  it  was  natural  for  him  to  adopt  that  language,  when  he 
was  not  particularly  called  to  speak  of  the  system  actually  estab- 
lished by  the  apostles.  But  when  Jerome  undertakes  professedly 
and  formally  to  tell  us  how  this  matter  actually  stood  in  the  aposto- 
lic age,  he  speaks  in  the  following  explicit  and  unequivocal  language. 
Comment,  in  Tit.  1.  9.  "  A.  presbyter  is  the  same  as  a  bishop  ;  and 
"  before  there  were,  by  the  instigation  of  the  devil,  parties  in  reli- 
"  gion,  and  it  was  said  among  the  people,  I  am  of  Paul,  I  of 
"  Appllos,  and  I  of  Cephas,  the  churches  wtre  governed  by  the 
"common  council  of  presbyters.  But  afterwards  when  every  one 
"  thought  that  those  whom  he  baptized  were  rather  his  than  Christ's, 
"  it  was  determined  through  the  whole  world,  that  one  of  the  pres- 
"  byters  should  be  set  above  the  rest,  to  whom  all  care  of  the  church 
"  should  belong,  that  the  seeds  of  schism  might  be  taken  away.  If 
"  any  suppose  that  it  is  merely  my  opinion,  and  not  that  of  the 
"  Scriptures,  that  bishop  and  presbyter  are  the  same,  and  that  one 
"  is  the  name  of  age,  the  other  of  office,  let  him  read  the  words  of 
"  the  apostle  to  the  Philippians,  saying,  Paul  and  Timothy,  the 
"servants  of  Jesus  Christ,  to  all  the  saints  in  Christ  Jesus  that 
are  in  Philippi,  with  the  bishops  and  deacons.  Philippi  is  a  city 
"  of  Macedonia,  and  certainly,  in  one  city,  there  could  not  be  more 
"  than  one  bishop,  as  they  are  now  styled.  But  at  that  time  they 
"  called  the  same  men  bishops  whom  they  called  presbyters ;  there- 
"  fore,  he  speaks  indifferently  of  bishops  as  of  presbyters.  This 
"  may  seem,  even  yet,  doubtful  to  some,  till  it  be  proved  by  another 
"  testimony.  It  is  written  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  that  when 
"  the  Apostle  came  to  Miletus  he  sent  to  Ephesus,  and  called  the 
" presbyters  of  that  church,  to  whom,  among  other  things,  he  said, 
"  Take  heed  to  your  selves,  and  to  all  thejlock  over  whom  the  Holy 
"  Ghost  hath  made  you  bishops,  to  feed  the  church  of  God  which 
"  he  hath  purchased  with  his  own  blood.  Here  observe  dili- 
"  gently,  that  calling  together  the  presbyters  of  one  city,  Ephesus , 
"  he  afterwards  styles  the  same  persons  bishops. 

"  These  things  I  have  written  to  show,  that  among  the  ancients, 
"  presbyters  and  bishops  were  the  same.  But,  by  little  and  little, 
"  that  all  the  seeds  of  dissension  might  be  plucked  up,  the  whole 
"  care  was  devolved  on  one.  As,  therefore,  the  presbyters  know, 
"  that  by  the  custom  of  the  church  they  are  subject  to  him  who  is 


TESTIMONY  OP  THE  FATHERS.  333 

«*  their  president,  so  let  bishops  know,  that  they  are  above  presbyters 
<l  more  by  the  custom  of  the  church,  than  by  any  real  appointment 
"of  Christ." 

In  his  epistle  to  Evagrius,  he  speaks  in  the  same  pointed  lan- 
guage, asserting,  and  proving  by  the  same  quotations  from  Scrip- 
ture, that  in  the  beginning,  and  during  the  apostle's  days,  a  bishop 
and  a  presbyter  were  the  same  thing.  After  having  done  this,  he 
proceeds  thus :  "  As  to  the  fact,  that  afterwards,  one  was  elected 
"  to  preside  over  the  rest,  this  was  done  as  a  remedy  against  schism  ; 
rt  lest  every  one  drawing  his  proselytes  to  himself,  should  rend  the 
"  Church  of  Christ.  For  at  Alexandria,  from  Mark  the  evangelist, 
"  to  the  bishops  Heraclas  and  Dionysius,  the  Presbyters  always 
"  chose  one  of  their  number,  placed  him  in  a  superior  station,  and 
"  gave  him  the  title  of  bishop.  In  the  same  manner  as  if  any  army 
"  should  make  an  emperor,  or  the  deacons  should  choose  from 
"  among  themselves,  one  whom  they  knew  to  be  particularly  active 
"  and  should  call  him  archdeacon." 

T)r.Bowden,and  his  friends,  do  not. hesitate  to  acknowledge,  that 
Jerome  represents  some  alteration  of  the  original  constitution  of  the 
church  as  having  early  taken  place  ;  but  they  insist  that,  according 
to  him,  this  alteration  took  place  during  the  time,  and  under  the 
authority  of  the  apostles.  Is  Dr.  B.  then  prepared  to  adopt  the 
opinion,  that  the  inspired  apostles  at  first  adopted  a  form  of  govern- 
ment, which  in  a  little  while,  they  found  ill  judged,  and  insufficient 
to  answer  the  purpose  ;  and  that  they  then  altered  it  for  a  better  ? 
Yet  if  there  is  any  meaning  in  part  of  his  reasoning,  this  is  the 
amount  of  it !  But  besides  the  blasphemy  of  the  suggestion,  Jerome 
could  not  have  intended  to  say  that  this  alteration  took  place  during 
the  times  of  the  apostles,  because  he  quotes  the  apostolical  epistles  to 
prove  that  it  had  not  taken  place  at  their  date ;  and  particularly 
in  his  epistle  to  Evagrius,  he  quotes  the  second  and  third  epistles 
of  John  to  show  that  Presbyterian  parity  existed  when  they  were 
written,  which  was  about  thirty  years  after  the  schism  at  Corinth, 
which  Dr.  Bowden  asserts  is  the  period  assigned  by  Jerome  for  the 
rise  of  prelacy.  Jerome  further  tells  us,  that  the  practice  of  setting 
one  of  the  presbyters  above  the  rest,  was  brought  in  by  degrees  ; 
which  could  never  have  been  the  case  had  it  been  founded  on  a 
distinct  and  positive  order  of  the  apostles.  And,  as  if  this  were  not 
sufficiently  explicit,  he  adds,  to  take  away  all  possibility  of  mistake, 


334  LETTER  V. 

"  Let  the  presbyters  know  that  they  are  subject  to  him  who  is  set 
"  over  them  by  the  custom  of  the  church  ;  and  let  the  bishops  know, 
"  that  they  are  greater  than  presbyters,  rather  by  the  custom  of  the 
"  churchy  than  by  any  real  appointment  of  Christ.77 

If  I  were  further  to  take  up  your  time,  brethren,  in  exposing  the 
various  attempts  of  Dr.  Bowden  to  set  aside  this  plain  and  unequivo- 
cal testimony  of  Jerome,  I  should  trespass  on  your  patience,  and 
insult  your  understandings.  I  have  only  to  say,  that  some  of  the 
most  learned  and  able  advocates  of  prelacy,  as  well  as  others,  have 
understood  Jerome  as  we  undertand  him,  and  have  confessed  that 
he  decisively  maintains  the  apostolic  origin  of  Presbyterian  parity. 
To  establish  this  fact,  the  most  pointed  quotations  might  be  ad- 
duced, almost  without  number.  The  few  following  will  be  sufficient. 

The  celebrated  episcopal  divine,  Dr.  Saravia,  explicitly  grants 
that  Jerome  was  against  the  divine  right  of  episcopacy.  "  Jerome's 
"  opinion,"  says  he,  "  was  private,  and  coincided  with  that  of 


The  learned  prelatist,  Alplionso  de  Castro  understood  Jerome  in 
the  same  manner.  He  sharply  reproves  a  certain  writer  who  had 
endeavoured  to  set  aside  the  testimony  commonly  derived  from 
that  father  in  favour  of  presbytery,  and  insists  that  the  testimony, 
as  usually  adduced,  is  correct.  "But  Thomas  Waldensis,"  says  he, 
"  truly  is  deceived  ;  for  Jerome  does  endeavour  to  prove  that, 
"  according  to  divine  institution,  there  was  no  difference  between 
"  presbyter  and  bishop.7'  He  afterwards  adds,  "  Neither  ought 
"  any  one  to  wonder  that  Jerome,  though  otherwise  a  most  learned 
"  and  excellent  man  was  mistaken."! 

Bishop  Jewel  understood  Jerome  as  we  do,  and  expressly  quotes 
the  passage  which  is  commonly  quoted  by  Presbyterians,  to  show 
that  this  father  asserts  the  original  equality  and  identity  of  bishops 
and  presbyters.^ 

Bishop  Morton  interprets  Jerome  in  the  same  manner.  He  ex- 
pressly acknowledges  that  Jerome  represents  the  difference  between 
bishop  and  presbyter  as  brought  into  the  church  not  by  divine^ 
but  human  authority.  He  further  asserts,  that  there  was  no  sub- 

*  De  Gradibus  Minist.  Evangel.  Cap.  23. 
f  Contra  Herts,  p,  103,  104. 

*  Defence  of  his  Apology  for  the  Church  of  England,  p.  248. 


TESTIMONY   OF  THE  FATHERS.  335 

stantial  difference,  on  the  subject  of  episcopacy,  between  Jerome 
and  Aerius.  And  further,  that  not  only  all  the  protest  ants,  but 
also  all  the  primitive  doctors  were  of  the  same  mind  with  Jerome.  * 

The  learned  Episcopalian,  professor  Whitaker,  concurred  in  this 
interpretation.  "If  Aerius,"  says  he,  "  was  a  heretic  in  this  point, 
"  he  had  Jerome  to  be  his  neighbour  in  that  heresy  ;  and  not  only 
"  him,  but  other  fathers,  both  Greek  and  Latin,  as  is  confessed  by 
'•'  Medina.  Aerius  thought  that  presbyter  did  not  differ  from  bi- 
"  shop  by  any  divine  law  and  authority ;  and  the  same  thing  was 
(t  contended  for  by  Jerome,  and  he  defended  it  by  those  very  scrip- 
"  ture  testimonies  that  Aerius  did."f 

Few  men  have  been  more  distinguished  for  their  learned  and 
zealous  labours  in  favour  of  episcopacy  than  Dr.  William  Nichols. 
Yet  this  eminent  Episcopalian,  speaking  of  Jerome,  thus  expresses 
himself.  "  At  last  came  St.  Jerome,  though  not  till  above  three 
u  centuries  after  the  apostles'  times,  who  valuing  himself  upon  his 
"  learning,  which,  indeed,  was  very  great ;  and  being  provoked  by 
"  the  insolence  of  some  deacons,  who  set  themselves  above  presby- 
"  ters ;  to  the  end  he  might  maintain  the  dignity  of  his  order 
"  against  such  arrogant  persons,  he  advanced  a  notion  never  heard 
"  of  before,  viz.  that  presbytersjvere  not  a  different  order  from  bi- 
"  shops ;  and  that  a  bishop  was  only  a  more  eminent  presbyter, 
"  chosen  out  of  the  rest,  and  set  over  them,  for  preventing  of 
«  schism."| 

Luther,  whom  some  of  our  episcopal  brethren  ignorantly  claim 
as  their  own,  in  the  articles  of  Smallcald,  which  he  framed,  ex- 
pressly declares,  that  "  Jerome  teaches  that  the  distinction  of  de- 
"  grees  between  a  bishop  and  a  presbyter,  or  pastor,  was  appointed 
"  only  by  human  authority."  This  declaration  was  also  formally 
subscribed  by  Melancthon.  In  the  Confession  of  Wirtemberg, 
Jerome  is  interpreted  in  the  same  manner;  and  in  the  second 
Helvetic  Confession,  he  is  particularly  quoted  in  support  of  the 
doctrine  that  in  the  primitive  church  bishop  and  presbyter  were 
the  same.  And,  in  a  subsequent  letter,  you  will  find  a  number  of 

*  Cathol  dpolog.  Lib.  i.  p.  118—120. 

f  Cmtrov.  iv.  Quest,  i.  Cap.  iii.  Sect.  30. 

*  Defence  of  the  Doct.  and  Discip.  of  the  Church  of  England  p.  241. 


336  LETTER  V. 

other  illustrious  divines,  of  different  denominations,  all  concurring 
in  the  interpretation  which  we  give  of  the  learned  father. 

I  shall  close  my  remarks  on  the  testimony  of  Jerome,  with  the 
judgment  of  bishop  Croft,  expressed  in  the  following  words — 
(t  And  now  I  desire  my  reader,  if  he  understands  Latin,  to  view 
"  the  epistle  of  St.  Jerome  to  Evagrius,  and  doubtless  he  will 
"  wonder  to  see  men  have  the  confidence  to  quote  any  thing  out  of 
"  it  for  the  distinction  between  episcopacy  and  presbytery  ;  for 
"  the  whole  epistle  is  to  show  the  identity  of  them."* 

I  will  not  attempt  to  follow  Dr.  Bowden  through  all  his  tedious 
details  of  testimony  from  the  fathers  of  the  third,  fourth,  and  fol- 
lowing centuries,  and  his  still  more  tedious  comments  on  that 
testimony.  What  if  Tertullian,  Cyprian,  Origen,  Hilary,  Epi- 
phanius,  Augustine,  and  a  dozen  more,  who  lived  within  the  same 
period,  could  be  brought  to  attest  in  the  most  unequivocal  terms 
that  prelacy  existed  in  their  time  ?  Does  any  Presbyterian  deny 
that  clerical  imparity  had  begun  to  appear  in  the  third,  and  was 
established  in  the  fourth  century  ?  But  Dr.  Bowden  alleges  that 
several  of  these  writers  expressly  assert  the  apostolic  institution 
of  prelacy.  JNow  if  it  were  even  true  that  they  ao  make  this  asser- 
tion, it  would  weigh  nothing  with  me,  nor  with  any  other  reasona- 
ble man.  In  this  opinion  every  one  must  concur  who  seriously 
weighs  the  following  facts. 

Within  fifty  years  after  the  apostolic  age,  thewznein  the  Lord's 
supper  was  constantly  mixed  with  water.  This  mixture,  consid- 
ered, at  first,  as  a  measure  of  human  prudence,  soon  began  to  be 
urged,  not  only  as  a  matter  of  importance,  but  as  a  divine  institu- 
tion. Irenceus  declares  it  to  have  been  both  taught  and  practised 
by  our  Saviour  himself.  Lib.  iv.  cap.  57. — Cyprian  also  asserts 
that  the  same  thing  was  enjoined  by  tradition  from  the  Lord,  and 
made  a  part  of  the  original  institution.  Epist.  63.  ad.  Ccecil.  But 
no  Protestant  now  believes  either  the  one  or  the  other.  Adminis- 
tering the  Lord's  supper  to  infants  arose  early  in  the  church.  It 
is  certain  that  this  corruption  existed  in  the  second  century. 
Cyprian,  in  the  third  century,  speaks  of  it,  not  as  a  new  thing, 
but  as  an  ordinary  practice.  De  Lapsis.  Sect.  13.  Augustine 

*  Naked  Truth,  p.  45. 


TESTIMONY  OF  THE  FATHERS.  337 

calls  it  an  apostolical  tradition,  represents  it  as  a  general  custom, 
and  expressly  founds  the  propriety  and  necessity  of  it  on  Jolm  vi. 
53.  Now  that  this  practice  never  had  the  least  foundation  either 
in  scripture  or  apostolic  example,  our  opponents,  as  well  as  our- 
selves, are  fully  agreed.  Again  ;  Irenceus  positively  asserts  that 
Christ  remained  on  earth  until  he  had  reached  old  age}  that  he 
was  at  \easiffty  years  old  when  he  was  crucified;  and  that 
"  this  was  ascertained  by  the  unanimous  tradition,  and  positive 
"  testimony  of  all  the  old  men  who  had  lived  with  St.  John,  and 
"  the  other  apostles,  from  whom  they  all  received  this  account,  and 
"  constantly  bore  witness  to  the  truth  of  it."  Lib.  n.  cap.  39. 
But  no  one  can  open  the  Bible,  without  perceiving  that  this  pretend- 
ed fact,  in  behalf  of  which  the  authority  of  inspired  men  is  quoted, 
is  totally  false.  To  mention  only  one  case  more  ;  we  learn  from 
Eusebius,  that,  in  the  days  of  Irenceus,  there  arose  a  very  fierce 
dispute  respecting  the  proper  time  for  the  celebration  of  Easter. 
The  churches  of  Asia  took  one  side ;  and  the  western  churches, 
with  Victor,  bishop  of  Eome,  at  their  head,  took  the  other.  The 
former  asserted,  that  they  were  supported  by  the  authority  of  the 
apostles  John  and  Philip.  The  latter,  with  equal  confidence, 
plead  the  authority  of  Peter  and  Paul  in  justification  of  their  prac- 
tice. Irenceus  addressed  a  letter  to  Victor  on  the  subject,  in  which 
there  is  found  the  following  passage.  "  This  diversity  did  not 
"  begin  in  our  time  ;  but  long  ago  among  our  forefathers ;  who,  as 
u  it  seems,  through  negligence  in  the  management  of  their  charge, 
"  handed  down  to  their  posterity  a  custom  which  through  simpli- 
"  city  and  ignorance  had  crept  into  the  church."*  And  Socrates, 
the  ecclesiastical  historian,  who  wrote  about  a  century  after 
Eusebius,  speaks  of  such  observances  generally  in  the  following 
language.  "  Neither  the  ancients,  nor  the  moderns,  who  have 
"  studiously  followed  the  Jews,  had,  in  my  opinion,  any  just  or 
"  rational  cause  for  contending  so  much  about  this  festival 
"  (Easter.)  For  they  considered  not  with  themselves,  that  when 
"  the  Jewish  religion  was  changed  into  Christianity,  those 
"  accurate  observances  of  the  Mosaic  law,  and  the  types,  wholly 
c£  ceased.  And  this  carries  along  with  it  its  own  demonstration. 
"  For  no  one  of  Christ's  laws  has  permitted  Christians  to  observe 

*  Euseb.  Hist.  Eccles.  Lib.  v.  Cap.  24. 
2  U 


338  LETTER  V. 

«'  the  rites  of  the  Jews.  On  the  contrary,  the  apostle  has  express- 
"  ly  forbid  this,  and  does  not  only  reject  circumcision,  but  also 
t(  advises  against  contending  about  festival  days.  Moreover,  it  is 
"  his  admonition,  that  days,  and  months,  and  years,  should  in  no 
"  wise  be  observed.  Besides,  in  his  epistle  to  the  Colossians,  he 
"  loudly  affirms  that  such  observances  are  a  shadow.  Men  love 
"  festival  days  because  thereon  they  have  a  cessation  from  their  la- 
"  bour.  Neither  our  Saviour  nor  his  apostles  have  enjoined  upon  us 
"  by  any  law  to  observe  such  days."*  Here,  then,  is  a  large  body 
of  churches  and  bishops  asserting  that  they  have  apostolical  autho- 
rity for  a  certain  practice.  On  the  other  hand  there  is  a  large 
body  of  equally  respectable  churches  and  bishops,  who  assert,  with 
no  less  confidence,  that  they  have  apostolical  authority  for  a 
different  practice.  And,  to  crown  all,  a  third  class,  as  much 
entitled  to  respect  as  either,  pronounce,  that  both  the  former  speak 
falsehood  ;  and  that  the  plea  of  apostolical  authority  advanced  by 
each,  is  equally  and  totally  without  foundation  !  Who,  after  such 
notorious  instances  of  either  credulity  or  dishonesty,  would  give 
the  least  credit  to  a  claim  of  apostolical  institution,  resting  on 
no  other  ground  tharrthe  assertion  of  the  fathers?  Could  we  find  in 
them,  therefore,,the  most  direct  and  decisive  claim  of  this  kind,  in 
behalf  of  diocesan  episcopacy,  it  would  be  unworthy  of  confidence. 
But  it  is  not  true  that  any  one  of  the  fathers,  within  the  Jirst  four 
centuries,  does  assert  the  apostolical  institution  of  prelacy.  Dr. 
Bowden  produces  Cyprian  as  saying,  that  "  Jesus  Christ,  and  he 
"  alone,  has  the  power  of  setting  bishops  over  the  church  to  govern 
"  it;"  that  "  Christ  constitutes  as  well  as  protects  bishops ;'?  and 
that  "  it  is  by  divine  appointment  a  bishop  is  set  over  the  church." 
He  produces  Origen,  as  saying,  "  Shall  I  not  be  subject  to  the  bi- 
"  shop  who  is  of  God  ordained  to  be  my  father  ?  Shall  not  I  be 
"  subject  to  the  presbyter,  who  is,  by  divine  vouchsafement,  set 
"  over  me  ?"  He  quotes  Hilary  as  declaring, "  The  bishop  is  the 
u  chief;  though  every  bishop  is  a  presbyter,  yet  every  presbyter  is 
u  not  a  bishop."  And  also  as  asserting,  that  James,  and  Timothy 
and  Titus,  and  the  angels  of  the  Asiatic  churches  were  bishops, 
He  cites  Athanasius  as  remonstrating  with  one  who  declined  a 
bishopric,  in  the  following  terms:  "  If  you  think  there  is  no  reward 

*  Socrat.  Eccles.  Hist.  Lib.  v.cap.  22. 


TESTIMONY  OF  THE  FATHERS.  339 

"  allotted  to  the  office  of  a  bishop,  you  despise  the  Saviour  who 
«  instituted  that  office."  He  represents  Chrysostom,  as  comment- 
ing on  1  Tim.  iv.  4.  in  these  words — "  Paul  does  not  speak  of 
''presbyters,  but  of  bishops,  for  presbyters  did  not  ordain  Timothy 
<(  a  bishop."  And  finally  he  produces  the  fathers  of  the  council 
ofAntioch,  in  the  year  265,  as  declaring,  that  "  the  office  of  a  bi- 
"  shop  is  sacred  and  exemplary,  both  to  the  clergy  and  to  the  peo- 
"  pie."  Now,  is  it  possible  that  Dr.  Bowden,  after  devoting  the 
best  powers  of  his  mind,  for  thirty  years,  to  this  controversy,  has 
yet  to  learn,  that  all  these  quotations,  and  ten  thousand  more  like 
them,  are  nothing  to  his  purpose  ?  It  is  truly  amazing  !  Have  not 
I,  who  am  a  Presbyterian,  repeatedly  said,  in  the  foregoing  sheets, 
that  "  bishops  were,  by  divine  appointment,  set  over  the  church  ?" 
Do  not  Presbyterians  perpetually  speak  of  the  office  of  bishop  in 
their  church  as  a  "  sacred  office  r"  And  would  any  Presbyterian 
on  earth  scruple  to  say,  that  bishops  were,  and  are  ordained  of 
God  to  be  set  over  the  church ;  and  also  that  every  member  of 
their  flock,  and  even  assistant  preachers,  within  their  parish,  if 
not  invested  with  a  share  in  the  pastoral  charge,  are  bound  to  be 
"  subject  to  them  ?'?  But  no  one,  surely,  could  construe  these  ex- 
pressions, or.  our  part,  as  implying  that  we  believed  in  thg  divine 
institution  of  such  bishops  as  our  episcopal  brethren  contend  for. 
The  truth  is,  these  quotations,  so  pompously  made,  only  prove  two 
points  ;  jirst,  that  the  fathers  in  question  believed  that  there  were 
bishops  in  the  apostolic  church  ;  which  no  man,  in  his  senses,  ever 
doubted:  and  secondly,  that  at  the  time  when  they  wrote,  bishops 
were  considered  as  having  some  kind  of  superiority  over  common 
presbyters  ;  which  is  as  little  doubted  as  the  former.  In  short,  Dr. 
Bowden  is  deceived  by  the  bare  occurrence  of  the  word  bishop. 
Whenever  he  finds  this  word  in  the  writings  of  the  fathers,  his 
imagination  is  instantly  filled  with  prelates,  and  with  all  the  pecu- 
liarities of  the  episcopal  system.  But  before  the  smallest  touch  of 
inquiry  this  hallucination  vanishes.  Though  bishops  in  the  third 
and  fourth  centuries,  had  appropriated  to  themselves  powers,  which 
before  had  been  enjoyed  by  others  in  common  with  them ;  yet 
their  office  itself  was  of  divine  appointment.  Dr.  Bowden,  indeed, 
says,  and  endeavours  to  persuade  his  readers,  that  the  writers  whom 
he  quotes,  declare  the  bishops  which  existed  in  the  days  of  the 


340  LETTER  V. 

apostles  to  have  been  just  such  bishops,  as  existed  several  centuries 
afterwards,  in  their  own  times — bishops  in  the  prelatical  sense  of 
the  word.  But  the  doctor,  with  all  his  confidence,  must  pardon  me 
for  saying,  this  is  not  true.  He  has  produced  no  passage  which 
makes  any  such  declaration,  or  which  legitimately  implies  it ;  nor 
is  he  able  to  produce  such  a  passage,  from  all  the  stores  of  antiqui- 
ty, within  the  specified  limits. 

Besides  the  direct  quotations  from  the  fathers,  which  prove  that 
the  primitive  bishop  was  the  pastor  of  a  single  congregation,  I  men- 
tioned, in  my  former  letters,  some  facts,  incidentally  stated  by  ear- 
ly writers,  which  serve  remarkably  to  confirm  the  same  truth.  Dr. 
Bowden  treats  these  alleged  facts  with  great  contempt,  and  endea- 
vours to  show  that  they  are  all  either  unfounded,  or  nothing  to  the 
purpose.  I  do  not  think  it  necessary  to  go  over  this  part  of  the 
ground  again.  Of  the^e  facts  mentioned  by  me  and  assailed  by 
Dr.  B.  there  are  only  two  of  which  it  appears  proper  to  take  any 
further  notice. 

Thejlrst  of  these  is,  the  GREAT  NUMBER  of  bishops  which  eccle- 
siastical historians  inform  us  were  found,  in  early  periods  of  the 
church,  within  small  districts  of  country.  Suppose  a  man  in  Europe 
were  to  be  told,  that  there  are,  at  this  time,  within  the  State  of  New 
York  TWO  HUNDRED  AND  FIFTY  bishops.  What  would  be  his  con- 
clusion ?  Why,  certainly,  that  these  could  not  be  such  bishops  as 
are  found  in  any  church  in  which  diocesan  episcopacy  is  established. 
And  if  he  were  immediately  afterwards  informed  that,  within  the 
whole  State,  there  are  only  about  two  hundred  andjifty  organized 
congregations,  he  would  confidently  infer  that  there  must  be  a  bi- 
shop in  every  congregation,  and,  therefore,  that  the  title  bishop 
was  considered  as  synonymous  with  that  of  pastor  of  a  single  church. 
This  is  precisely  my  argument  in  the  present  case.  When  we  find 
in  provincial  synods,  in  early  times,  several  hundred  bishops  con- 
vened ;  when  we  find,  upon  inquiry,  that  these  bishops  and  their 
bishoprics  were  all  embraced  in  districts  of  country  not  much,  if  at 
all,  more  extensive  than  the  State  of  New  York  ;  and  when  we  have 
reason  further  to  conclude  that  many  parts,  even  of  these  districts, 
were  not  subjected  to  the  empire  of  Christianity ;  what  must  be  our 
conclusion  ?  Unquestionably,  that  which  has  been  just  mentioned. 
These  bishops  could  have  been  no  other  than  parish  rectors,  or 


TESTIMONY  OF  THE  FATHERS.  341 

pastors;  and  the  fact  goes  far  toward  corroborating  the  doctrine 
in  support  of  which  it  was  produced,  viz.  that  primitive  episcopacy 
was  parochial,  and  not  diocesan. 

Dr.  Bowden  does  not  deny  that,  in  the  council  of  Antioch  in  the 
third  century,  there  were  upwards  'of  six  hundred  bishops.  He 
does  not  deny  that  there  were  present  at  a  provincial  synod,  in 
Africa,  in  the  time  of  Augustine,  between  Jive  and  six  hnndred 
Bishops.  Neither  does  he  deny,  that  about  the  same  time,  accord- 
ing to  Victor  Vticensis,  from  that  part  of  Africa  in  which  the 
Vandalic  persecution  raged,  six  hundred  and  sixty  bishops  fled, 
besides  \\\Qgreat  number  that  were  murdered  and  imprisoned, 
and  many  more  who  were  tolerated.  Now  when  it  is  recollected  that 
this  persecution  extended  only  to  a  small  portion  of  Africa,  and 
that  it  was  carried  on  by  one  denomination  of  prefessing  Chris- 
tians against  another,  we  are  necessarily  led  to  conclude  that  there 
must  have  been  in  that  section  of  Africa  atone,  at  least  two  thou- 
sand bishops.  Could  these  have  been  prelates,  each  with  a  num- 
ber of  congregations  and  pastors  under  his  care  ?  It  is  incredible. 
They  could  not  have  been  more  than  the  ordinary  pastors  of  single 
congregations.  It  is  not  likely  that  organized  churches  were  more 
thickly  strewed  in  Africa,  at  that  time,  than  at  present  in  our 
own  country ;  nor  can  we,  by  any  means,  suppose  that  the  per- 
secution in  question  prevailed  through  a  district  larger  than  the 
United  States  ;  yet  I  am  persuaded  we  have  not  in  the  United 
States  many  more  than  two  thousand  regular  clergymen  of  all 
denominations. 

All  that  Dr.  Bowden  has  to  offer  in  opposition  to  this  reasoning, 
is,  that  the  "  learned  Bingham,  in  his  Antiquities  of  the  Churchy 
has  given  a  geographical  description  of  the  ancient  bishoprics,  as 
first  made  toward  the  close  of  the  ninth  century  ;"  and  that,  ac- 
cording to  his  representation,  there  is  no  difficulty  in  accounting 
for  the  number  of  bishops  found  in  the  early  councils. — To  this 
testimony  of  Bingham  I  might  offer  many  objections.  The  work 
which  contains  it,  though  apparently  much  respected  by  Dr.  Bow- 
den, is  a  work  of  great  partiality,  and  little  credit.  The  sources 
from  which  the  author  derived  his  information,  are  by  no  means 
such  as  ought  to  inspire  the  confidence  of  any  reasonable  man. 
And,  how  any  mortal  can  with  confidence  determine,  from 
arrangements  made  in  the  ninth  century,  what  were  those  of  the 


342  LETTER  V. 

third  and  fourth,  Dr.  Bowden  may  be  able  to  explain  ;  I  am  not. 
But  after  all,  what  is  the  amount  of  Bingham's  testimony  ?  It  is 
that,  even  in  the  ninth  century,  many  of  the  bishops'  dioceses  were 
of  very  small  extent,  little,  if  any,  larger  than  many  of  our  modern 
parishes.  And  is  not  this  precisely  the  position  for  which  I  con- 
tend, and  on  which  this  whole  argument  is  founded?  Besides, if 
bishoprics  were  thus  small  in  the  ninth  century,  have  we  not  abun- 
dant proof  that  they  were  smaller  still,  in  the  third  and  fourth 
centuries,  when  it  is  certain  that  bishops  were  more  numerous  than 
they  were  several  hundred  years  afterwards  ?  but  this  is  not  the 
only  instance  in  which  Dr.  Bowden  unwittingly  betrays  his  own 
cause,  and  supports  the  Presbyterian  doctrine. 

But,  with  respect  to  the  African  bishoprics,  Dr.  Bowden, 
following  his  suspicious  guide,  Bingham,  takes  a  ground  somewhat 
different.  He  asserts,  that  "  in  the  whole  extent  of  that  country, 
"  from  the  borders  of  Egypt  to  the  western  part  of  the  peninsula, 
"  comprehending  a  length  of  2360  miles,  and  a  breadth  in  some 
"  places  of  200,  in  others  of  500  miles,  there  were  but  466  dioce- 
"  ses ;  as  appears,  he  adds,  from  the  Collation  of  Carthage,  the 
"  abstract  of  St.  Austin,  and  the  Notitia  of  the  African  church, 
"  made  about  fifty  years  after  Austin's  death,  and  published  by 
"  Sirmondus."  On  this  statement  I  shall  make  no  remark ;  but 
shall  leave  it,  to  be  treated  as  it  deserves,  by  those  who  recollect  the 
account  given  by  Victor  Uticensis  of  the  number  of  bishops 
banished,  murdered,  &c.  during  the  Vandalic  persecution  ;  and 
also  the  numbers  of  bishops  actually  convened  in  provincial  synods, 
about  the  same  time. 

The  next  fact  which  I  think  it  my  duty  further  to  notice,  is,  that 
in  early  times,  it  was  customary  for  thejlock  of  which  the  bishop 
was  to  have  the  charge,  to  meet  together  for  the  purpose  of  electing 
him  5  and  that  he  was  always  ordained  in  their  presence.  This 
was  mentioned  as  another  consideration  which  evinces  that  pri- 
mitive episcopacy  was  parochial,  and  not  diocesan.  Dr.  Bowden 
denies  the  fact.  He  declares  that  there  are  no  traces  of  the  popular 
election  of  bishops  during  the  first  two  hundred  years  after  Christ ; 
and  that  so  far  as  this  practice  ever  prevailed,  it  arose  in  the  third 
century,  but  was  soon  laid  aside.  In  reply  to  these  bold  assertions, 
I  shall  only  present  the  following  quotation  from  Cyprian,  Doctor 
Bowderfs  favourite  authority.  Epist.  67.  "  Wherefore  a  people 


TESTIMONY  OF  THE  FATHERS.  343 

"  who  would  obey  the  rules  of  the  gospel  should  separate  themselves 
(c  from  a  sinful  bishop,  and  should  not  partake  with  a  profane  priest 
t<  in  his  sacrifices  ;  especially  since  the  CHIEF  POVER  of  choosing 
"  worthy  priests,  and  of  rejecting  unworthy  ones,  is  lodged  with 
"them:  which  rule   we  see  proceeded  originally  from   God's 
"  authority,  that  a  bishop  should  be  chosen  in  the  presence  of  the 
"  people,  in  the  most  public  manner,  and  be  approved  as  worthy 
"  by  the  common  suffrage  of  the  whole  body.     God  directs  his 
"  priest  to  be  made  so  before  all  the  congregation ;  and  thereby 
"  shows  us,  that  he  would  not  have  the  ordinations  of  his  bishops 
"  performed,  but  in  the  presence,  and  with  the  privity  of  the  peo- 
"  pie.     This  rule,  thus  appointed  by  God,  we  find  afterwards 
"  observed  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  when  Peter  spoke  to  the 
"  people,  upon  the  point  of  substituting  some  one  to  be  an  apostle, 
"  in  the  room  of  Judas.     Nor  do  we  find  the  apostles  observing 
(( this  rule  in  the  case  of  bishops  and  priests  only,  but  even  in  the 
"  ordination  of  deacons  ;  concerning  which  it  is  recorded  in  Acts, 
"  vi.  2.     Then  the  twelve  called  the  multitude  of  the  disciples 
"  unto  them,  and  said,  Look  ye  out  seven  men  of  honest  report 
"  full of the  Holy  Ghost  and  of  wisdom;  and  the  saying  pleased 
tc  the  whole  multitude  ;  and  they  chose  Stephen,  fyc.  whom  they  set 
"  before  the  apostles,  8fc.    Wherefore  the  rule  which  we  have 
"  handed  down  to  us  from  God  himself,  and  from  the  practice  of 
"  his  apostles,  should  be  observed  with  all  exactness,  as  it  is, 
"  indeed,  already  amongst  us,  and  generally  amonst  the  provinces 
"  here;  viz.  that  in. celebrating  our  ordinations,  the  neighbouring 
<*  bishops  of  the  province,  where  a  bishop  is  to  be  ordained  for  any 
"  people,*  should  meet  upon  the  place,  and  choose  a  bishop  in  the 
"  presence  of  the  people.     This  rule  wejind  you  observed  in  the 
"  ordination  of  our  colleague,  Sabinus,  who  was  unanimously  cho- 
"  sen  by  the  votes  of  all  the  people,  and  the  approbation  of  the 
"  bishops  who  were  there  assembled." 

Here  Cyprian,  who  flourished  about  the  middle  of  the  third 

*  How  remarkably  does  Cyprian  speak  in  the  Presbyterian  style  !  To 
ordain  a  bishop  for,  or  over,  a.  people,  or  flock,  is  scarcely  intelligible  on 
episcopal  principles.  The  episcopal  bishop  of  New  York,  as  such,  is 
equally  related  to  all  the  congregations  belonging  to  that  communion  in 
the  State.  In  our  church,  a  bishop  is  ordained  over  a  particular  flock  or 
people. 


344  LETTER  V. 

century,  declares  that  the  election  of  bishops  by  the  votes  of  all  the 
people,  was  a  regulation  established  by  God  himself,  and  sanction- 
ed by  \\ie  practice  of  the  apostles.  And,  lest  the  nature  of  this 
"  election  should  be  mistaken,  he  asserts  that  the  chief  power  of 
choice  lies  with  the  people,  by  divine  right.  Nay,  to  render  the 
point  still  more  unequivocal,  he  represents  the  election  in  question 
as  of  the  same  nature  with  that  of  the  deacons,  in  Acts  vi.  2,  3, 
&c.  in  which  it  is  expressly  asserted,  that  the  ichole  multitude,  or 
the  body  of  the  people,  made  the  choice.*  If  this  is  not  testimony 
that  the  method  of  popular  election  was  practised  in  the  days  of 
Cyprian,  and  that  that  father  considered  it  as  *of  divine  appoint- 
ment, and  as  having  been  received  in  the  church  from  the  days  of 
the  apostles,  then  I  know  not  how  to  understand  or  interpret  his 
language.  Dr.  Boioden  gives  only  a  part  of  the  above  extract  from 
Cyprian,  and  endeavours  to  prove  from  it  that  an  actual  election 
by  the  people  is  not  at  all  intended.  I  trust,  however,  that  of  this 
gloss,  on  further  consideration,  he  will  be  ashamed. 

Having  thus,  with  all  possible  brevity,  replied  to  such  of  Dr. 
Bowderi's  strictures  as  appeared  worthy  of  notice,  I  shell  select  a 
few  additional  testimonies  from  the  fathers,  and  request  you  to  give 
them  your  serious  attention. 

Hilary,  in  his  commentary  on  i  Timothy  iii.  affirms  "  The  or- 
"  dination  of  bishop  and  presbyter  is  one  and  the  same."  Could 
he  possibly  have  said  this,  if  they  had  been  different  orders,  and 
had  received  a  different  ordination  ? 

The  following  passage  from  Basil,  bishop  of  Cesarea,  who  was 
contemporary  with  Jerome,  is  also  worthy  of  notice. — "  Christ 
"  says,  Lovest  thou  me,  Peter,  more  than  these  ?  Feed  my  sheep. 
"  And  from  thence  he  gave  to  all  pastors  and  doctors  equal power  ; 
"  whereof  this  is  a  token,  that  all  of  them,  as  Peter  did,  bind  and 
« loosest 

In  the  4th  Council  of  Carthage,  the  following  canon  was  passed  : 

*  It  ought  to  be  recollected,  that  the  epistle  from  which  the  above 
extract  is  taken,  was  written  to  some  people  in  Spain,  who  wished  ad- 
vice in  a  case  in  which  the  right  of  the  people  to  choose  their  own  bish- 
op was  immediately  concerned  ;  and  that  it  was  written  not  in  the  name 
of  Cyprian  only,  but  hi  that  of  the  African  synod. 

.  f  Constitut.  Monastic.  Cap.  22.  p.  718. 


TESTIMONY  OF  THE  FATHERS.  345 

«  Let  the  bishop,  when  he  is  in  the  church,  and  sitting  in  the 
"  presbytery,  be  placed  in  a  higher  seat ;  but  when  he  is  in  the 
"  house,  let  him  know  that  he  is  the  colleague  of  tiie  presbyters." 
Can.  35.  By  the  same  council,  it  was  enacted,  "  that  every  bishop 
"  should  reside  in  a  small  house  near  the  church  in  which  he  offi- 
"  dated"— that  he  should  have  "  plain  and  even  coarse  household 
"  furniture" — and  that  "  he  should  give  himself  perpetually  to 
"  reading,  praying,  and  preaching."  Can.  14,  15. 20. 

In  the  Apostolical  Constitutions  the  following  passages  are  found, 
which  Dr.  Bowden  is  bound,  on  his  own  principles,  to  respect  and 
admit.  Lib.  n.  Cap.  27.  "  It  behoves  you,  brethren,  to  bring 
"  your  sacrifices  and  oblations  to  the  bishop,  as  to  the  high  priest, 
"  and  offer  them,  either  by  yourselves,  or  by  the  deacons.  Offer 
"  the  bishop  also  your  first  fruits  and  tythes,  and  your  voluntary 
"  gifts ;  for  he  knows  the  poor,  and  gives  to  every  one  what  is 
tc  convenient ;  lest  one  receive  twice  or  oftener  the  same  day,  or 
"  the  same  week,  and  another  receive  not  so  much  as  once."  Cap. 
31.  "  The  deacon  must  give  nothing  to  any  poor  man  without  the 
"  bishop's  knowledge  and  consent."  Cap.  44.  "  The  deacon  must 
"  be  the  bishop's  eye,  and  ear,  and  mouth,  nay,  his  heart  and  soul, 
"  that  the  bishop  may  be  only  taken  up  with  the  weightier  affairs 
"  of  his  flock."  Here  it  is  evident  that  the  business  of  the  deacons 
was  to  take  care  of  the  poor.  This  is  exactly  the  doctrine  of  the 
Presbyterians,  and,  what  is  much  more  important,  of  the  New 
Testament.  Here  it  is  evident,  also,  that  no  poor  man  was  to  be 
relieved  without  the  knowledge  and  approbation  of  the  bishop  ; 
who,  it  is  expressly  said,  is  presumed  to  know  all  the  poor,  and  to 
be  able  to  give  to  every  one  what  is  convenient.  Could  this  officer 
have  been  any  other  than  the  pastor  of  a  single  flock  ? 

Again;  the  same  Apostolical  Constitutions  thus  describe  the 
ordinary  solemnities  of  public  worship.  Lib.  n.  Cap.  57.  "  When 
"  thou,  O  bishop,  hast  called  together  the  church  of  Go'd,  like  the 
"  master  of  a  ship,  require  them  to  assemble  often,  with  all 
"  prudence  and  regularity  of  discipline.  Command  the  deacons^ 
"  as  so  many  mariners,  that  they  appoint  convenient  places  for  all 
"  the  brethren,  as  for  so  many  passengers,  with  all  care  and  de- 
"  cency.  And  first  let  the  house  of  worship  be  oblong,  turned 
"  toward  the  east,  having  seats  (or  pews}  on  both  sides,  towards 
«  the  east,  and  like  a  ship.  In  the  middle  place  let  the  bishop's 
2X 


346  LETTER  V. 

"  seat  be ;  and  on  both  sides  of  him  let  the  presbyters  sit.  But  let 
"  the  deacons  stand  ready  for  service,  lightly  clothed,  for  they  are 
"  like  the  mariners,  and  those  that  order  the  sides  of  the  ship.  By 
"  their  care,  let  the  laymen  sit  quietly  and  orderly  in  one  part  of 
"  the  church  :  and  the  women  also  by  themselves,  abstaining  from 
"  talking.  Let  the  reader,  standing  in  the  middle,  in  some  high 
"  place,  read  the  books  of  Moses,  fyc.  The  reading  being  finished, 
"  let  another  sing  the  hymns  of  David.  Then  let  our  Acts  (i,  e. 
u  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles)  and  the  epistles,  be  recited.  After 
"  these  things  let  line  presbyters  exhort  the  people;  and  last  of 
"  all  the  bishop,  who  is  like  the  master  of  the  ship.  Let  the 
"  door-keepers  stand  at  the  church  doors,  where  the  men  enter  5 
"  and  the  deaconesses  where  the  women  enter.  If  any  be  found 
"  sitting  out  of  his  own  place,  let  the  deacon  reprove  him,  and  let 
"  him  be  conducted  to  a  proper  place.  Let  the  deacons  take 
«  care  that  none  whisper,  sleep,  laugh,  nod,  &c.  After  the  cate- 
«  chumens  and  penitents  have  retired,  let  the  deacons  prepare  for 
«  the  celebration  of  the  Eucharist,  #c." 

No  one  can  read  these  rules  without  perceiving  that  they  relate 
to  the  ordinary  worship  of  Christian  assemblies,  when  convened 
on  the  sabbath.  To  doubt  this,  is  to  fly  in  the  face  of  common 
sense.  Yet  we  find  the  presence  of  the  bishop,  in  every  public 
service,  spoken  of  as  indispensable.  Is  it  not  manifest,  then, 
that  this  bishop  could  only  have  been  the  pastor  of  a  single  flock? 

The  sixth  general  council  of  Constantinople,  which  was  held 
about  the  year  692,  acknowledged  the  "  scripture  deacons  to  be  no 
other  than  overseers  of  the  poor  ;  and  that  this  was  the  opinion  of 
the  ancient  fathers."  Can.  16.  Here  is  another  explicit 
acknowledgment,  that  the  apostolic  constitution  of  the  church,  as  to 
her  officers,  was  notoriously  changed,  prior  to  the  year  692. 

The  council  of  Aix  la  Chapelle,  held  about  the  year  816,  in 
the  most  unequivocal  terms  owned  the  original  identity  of  bishops 
and  presbyters,  and  expressly  declared,  that  "  the  ordination  of 
"  the  clergy  was  reserved  to  the  high-priest  only  for  the  main- 
"  tenance  of  his  dignity."  Can.  8.  Could  this  form  of  expression 
have  been  thought  correct  if  presbyters  were,  by  divine  right, 
destitute  of  the  power  of  ordaining  ?  Certainly  not. 

Some  other  facts,  which  are  ascertained  from  the  writings  of  the 
fathers,  and  which  were  mentioned  in  my  former  letters,  deserve 


TESTIMONY   OF  THE  FATHERS.  347 

further  consideration.  We  are  informed,  by  several  early  writers, 
that  the  bishops,  during  the  first  three  centuries,  were  alone  consider- 
ed as  authorized  to  administer  baptism  and  the  Lord'j  supper.  From 
Ignatius,  Tertullian,  and  Cyprian,  we  learn  that  Christians,  in 
those  days,  received  the  eucharist  from  no  hands  but  those  of  the 
bishop ;  and  that  baptism  was  considered  as  his  appropriate  work, 
and  never  to  be  administered  by  any  other  hands,  unless  in  cases 
of  necessity.  Again,  in"  the  30th  canon  of  the  council  of  Agatha, 
it  is  said — "  It  shall  not  be  lawful  for  a  presbyter  in  the  church  to 
"  pronounce  the  benediction  on  the  people,  or  to  bless  a  penitent." 
Now,  when  it  is  notorious,  that,  in  those  days,  the  Lord's  supper 
was  administered  every  sabbath,  and  in  some  churches  oftener ; 
when  cases  of  baptism  doubtless  continually  occurred ;  and  when 
pronouncing  the  benediction  on  the  people  made,  then,  as  well  as 
now,  a  part  of  every  public  service  ;  it  is  plain  that  the  presence 
of  a  bishop  was  considered  as  indispensable,  every  Lord's  day,  in 
every  worshipping  assembly.  Is  it  not  evident,  when  this  was  the 
case,  that  the  bishop  could  have  been  nothing  less  or  more  than 
the  pastor  of  a  single  church  ? 

Dr.  Bowden  does  not  attempt  to  deny  the  facts  here  alleged. 
They  are,  indeed,  so  abundantly  confirmed  by  the  voice  of  antiqui- 
ty, that  he  cannot  possibly  call  them  in  question.  But  he  endea- 
vours to  evade  their  force  by  saying,  that  these  writers  only  mean 
in  general  to  represent  the  bishop  as  the  fountain  of  all  ecclesiasti- 
cal power;  and  to  assert  that  none  have  a  right  to  administer  the 
ordinances  of  religion,  excepting  those  who  are  empowered  by 
him.  And,  in  like  manner,  and  on  the  same  principle,  he  intimates, 
that  the  presbyters  in  the  episcopal  church,  baptize  and  administer 
the  eucharist  in  virtue  of  permission  given  them  by  the  bishop  for 
that  purpose.  This  is  an  evasion  unworthy  of  Dr.  B's  understand- 
ing and  gravity.  The  writers  above  quoted,  undoubtedly  convey 
the  idea,  that  administering  baptism  and  the  sacrament  of  the 
Lord's  supper  was  the  appropriated  and  peculiar  work  of  the 
bishop  as  such  ;  that  in  cases  of  necessity  only  they  might  commit 
these  ordinances  to  other  hands  5  but  that  for  every  such  dispensa- 
tion there  must  be  a  distinct  expression  of  the  bishop's  will,  and 
his  leave  expressly  obtained.  In  short,  the  idea  evidently  meant 
to  be  conveyed  is,  that  certain  acts  could  be  done  regularly  by  the 
bishop  only ;  but  that  in  cases  of  sickness,  necessary  absence, 


348  LETTER  V. 

&c.  he  might  empower  some  one  to  perform  them  as  his  substi- 
tute ;  just  as,  among  Presbyterians,  the  administration  of  sealing 
ordinances  is  considered  as  the  appropriate  duty  of  each  pastor 
within  his  parish ;  though  at  the  same  time,  if  he  have  an  assist- 
ant,  or  if  any  other  ordained  minister  happen  to  be  present,  the 
pastor  may,  without  transgressing  any  ecclesiastical  law,  request 
him  to  officiate  in  his  room :  it  being  always  remembered,  however, 
that  for  every  such  act,  a  new  request,  and  a  new  -permission,  on 
the  part  of  the  pastor,  are  necessary.  But  does  this  bear  any  resem- 
blance to  the  episcopal  system,  in  which  baptism  and  the  Lord's 
supper  are  in  no  degree  the  appropriated  duty  of  a  prelate  ;  but 
according  to  which  every  presbyter,  whether  he  have  the  charge  of 
a  congregation  or  not,  is  considered  as  possessing,  in  virtue  of  his 
general  commission,  a  right  to  administer  both  the  sacraments,  at 
all  times,  and  in  all  places,  without  consulting  his  bishop  ?  I  am 
astonished  that  Dr.  Bowden  could  so  far  impose  on  himself  as  to 
imagine  that  there  is  any  resemblance  between  the  two  cases. 

•  After  all,  then,  that  Dr.  Boioden  has  urged  against  my  exhibition 
of  the  testimony  of  the  fathers,  it  appears  that  he  has  not  succeed- 
ed in  setting  aside  a  single  material  fact,  or  in  refuting  a  single 
important  argument,  which  I  had  deduced  from  the  works  of  those 
early  writers. 

It  appears,  that  the  titles,  bishop  and  presbyter,  were  promis- 
cuously applied  to  the  same  persons,  not  only  in  the  apostolic  age, 
but  also  till  the  close  of  the  second  century.  This  T>r.  Bowden  him- 
self acknowledges  ;  though  he  asserts,  at  the  same  time,  that  in  the 
second  century,  it  was  seldom  so  applied.  Now  if  the  interchange- 
able application  of  these  terms  was  continued  until  that  time, 
and  afterwards  does  not  occur,  must  we  not  conclude,  that  about, 
or  immediately  after  that  time,  some  change  took  place  in  the 
arrangement  of  ecclesiastical  dignities,  which  led  to  a  more  restrict- 
ed use  of  the  word  bishop  ?  No  supposition  can  be  more  natural ; 
and  it  is  precisely  this  for  which  we  contend. 

Jt  appears,  that  Dr.  Bowden  has  not  produced,  and  cannot  pro- 
duce, a  single  sentence,  from  any  writer  within  the  first  two  hun- 
dred years,  which  gives  the  least  hint  that  ordination  or  confirm- 
ation was  in  fact  confined  to  a  particular  order  of  prelates,  or  was 
considered  as  a  right  which  ought  to  be  so  confined. 


TESTIMONY   OF  THE  FATHERS.  349 

It  appears,  that  pre sbyters  are  expressly  represented  by  early 
writers,  and  particularly  by  Ignatius  and  Irenceus,  as  the  succes- 
sors of  the  apostles,  and  as  presiding  over  the  church. 

It  appears,  that  in  every  worshipping  assembly,  in  the  primitive 
church,  the  presence  of  a  bishop  was  considered  as  indispensable. 
That  it  was  the  bishop's  peculiar  duty  to  preach,  and  to  bless  the 
people  ;  to  administer  baptism,  and  the  Lord's  supper  ;  to  attend 
to  the  case  of  every  poor  person  in  his  parish  that  needed  relief; 
to  celebrate,  or  give  his  personal  consent  to  the  celebration,  of  all 
marriages  among  the  people  of  his  charge  ;  to  visit  the  sick;  to  in- 
struct the  children  of  his  flock  statedly  every  week ;  and,  in  short, 
to  perform  all  those  duties  which  are  now,  and  ever  have  been 
considered,  as  the  proper  work  of  a  parish  minister. 

It  appears,  after  all  that  has  been  said  to  the  contrary,  that  the 
number  of  bishops  found,  in  early  times,  in  small  districts  of  coun- 
try, precludes  the  idea  of  their  having  been  any  other  than  parish 
ministers. 

It  appears,  that,  even  after  a  kind  of  prelacy  arose,  the  bishops 
were  still,  for  the  most  part,  only  pastors  of  single  congregations  ; 
and  that  there  was  little,  if  any  other  difference  between  them  and 
their  presbyters,  than  that  which  now  subsists  between  pastors  and 
their  assistants,  in  Presbyterian  churches,  and  rectors  and  their 
curates,  in  episcopal  churches. 

It  appears  that  Jerome,  after  all  the  unwearied  pains  which  have 
been  taken  by  high-churchmen,  to  set  aside  his  testimony,  does  ex- 
plicitly declare,  that  Presbyterian  parity  was  the  apostolic  and 
primitive  form  of  church  government ;  and  that  this  form  was 
afterwards,  and  gradually,  exchanged  for  prelacy.  And  it  is  evi- 
dent, moreover,  that  some  of  the  most  learned  and  zealous  episcopal 
divines  have  so  understood  him. 

It  appears  from  Jerome,  that  the  first  approach  towards  prelacy 
was  the  standing  moderator  ship  of  one  of  the  presbyters ;  that 
this  began  in  the  church  of  Alexandria  very  early  ;  soon,  if  not 
immediately  after  the  days  of  Mark  the  evangelist ;  and  that  this 
was  the  only  kind  of  clerical  imparity  that  existed  in  that  church 
until  the  middle  of  the  third  century,  when  it  gave  place  to  some 
higher  encroachments  of  ecclesiastical  ambition. 

It  appears  from  several  unexceptionable  testimonies,  that  dea- 
cons in  the  primitive  church,  were  not  an  order  of  clergy  at  all ; 


350  LETTER   V. 

that  they  were  only  entrusted  with  the  care  of  the  poor,  and  em- 
ployed to  assist  in  the  administration  of  the  Lord's  supper,  as  in 
the  Presbyterian  church  at  present ;  and  that  their  gradually  com- 
ing to  be  considered  as  a  third  order  of  clergy,  was,  like  the  claims 
of  the  prelates,  an  innovation. 

It  appears,  from  the  declaration  of  several  fathers,  besides  Je- 
rome, that  some  change  in  the  powers  and  prerogatives  of  bishops, 
did  actually  take  place,  within  the  first  three  centuries  ;  and  that 
several  things  were  appropriated  is  bishops  in  the  third  and  fourth 
centuries,  which  those  writers  assert  were  not  appropriated  to 
them  in  the  apostolic  age.* 

Finally,  it  appears,  from  ail  that  has  been  said,  that  the  writings 
of  the  fathers,  instead  of  speaking  "  decisively"  and  "  unanimous- 
ly" in  favour  of  prelacy,  as  some  of  our  high-toned  episcopal  breth- 
ren assert,  do  not  produce  a  single  testimony,  within  the  prescribed 
limits,  which  gives  the  least  countenance  to  the  prelatical  claim  ; 
and  that  we  are  abundantly  warranted  (to  repeat  the  language^  of 
Bishop  Croft,  formerly  cited)  in  pronouncing,  that  the  proofs 
brought  to  support  this  claim  are  altogether  "  weak ;  no  scripture ; 
«  no  primitive  general  council ;  no  general  consent  of  primitive 
"  doctors  and  fathers  ;  no,  not  one  primitive  father  of  note,  speak- 
"  ing  particularly  and  home  to  the  purpose"  of  its  advocates. 

*  Among  the  fathers  mentioned  in  my  former  volume,  as  speaking.of 
this  change,  is  Hilary.  I  represent  him  as  saying,  "  And  in  Egypt,  even 
"  at  this  day,  the  presbyters  ordain  (consignant)  in  the  bishop's  absence." 
Dr.  Bowden  asserts,  that  the  word  conslgnant  has  no  reference  to  ordina- 
tion. He  does  not,  indeed,  appear  to  be  certain  what  it  does  signify;  but 
is  very  confident  that  it  cannot  mean  ordination.  I  forgot  to  notice  this  in 
its  proper  place;  and  have  now  neither  time,  nor  room  to  make  more 
than  two  remarks  upon  it.  The  first  is,  that  several  eminent  episcopal 
divines,  and,  among  others,  Bishop  Forbes,  have  understood  Hilary  as  I 
do,  to  be  speaking  here  of  ordination.  The  second  remark  is,  that  what- 
ever religious  rite  it  is  that  Hilary  refers  to,  it  is  something  which  the  bi- 
shops, in  his  day,  generally  claimed  as  their  prerogative;  but  which  had 
not  be^n  always  appropriated  to  them;  and  which  even  in  his  time,  in 
the  bishop's  absence,  the  presbyters  considered  themselves  as  empower- 
ed to  perform.  This  is  sufficient  for  my  purpose. 


(  351  ) 


LETTER   VI. 


TESTIMONY  OF  THE  REFORMERS. 


CHRISTIAN  BRETHREN, 

IN  the  sixth  of  my  former  letters,  I  endeavoured  to  show  that 
the  great  body  of  the  Reformers,  and  other  witnesses  for  the 
truth,  in  different  ages  and  nations,  were  Presbyterians  in  princi- 
ple. This  allegation,  and  the  proof  by  which  it  is  supported,  Dr, 
Bowden,  according  to  his  usual  manner,  confidently  rejects,  and 
pronounces  a  total  misrepresentation.  With  what  justice  he  does 
this,  a  few  remarks  will  enable  you  to  determine. 

I  asserted  that  the  Waldenses  were  substantially  Presbyterians, 
both  in  principle  and  practice;  that  among  other  points,  in  which 
they  rejected  the  corruptions  of  the  Romish  church,  they  held,  that 
there  ought  to  be  no  diversity  of  rank  among  the  ministers  of  the 
gospel ;  and  that  bishops  and  presbyters,  according  to  the  word  of 
God,  and  primitive  usage,  were  the  same  order.  All  this,  Dr.  Bow- 
den  denies;  and  insists  that  the  Waldenses  were  uniformly  Epis- 
copal in  their  ecclesiastical  character.  The  following  testimonies 
will  show  on  which  side  the  truth  lies. 

John  Paul  Perrin,  who  was  himself  a  pastor  among  them,  in 
his  history  of  that  people,  delivers  at  length, "  the  discipline  under 
"  which  the  Waldenses  and  Albigenses  lived ;  extracted  out  of 
"  divers  authentic  manuscripts,  written  in  their  own  language, 

"  SEVERAL    HUNDREDS    OP   YEARS    BEFORE    LuTHER  OR  CALVIN." 

From  this  work,  the  following  extracts  are  made.     Art.  2.    "  Of 
"  pastors."  "  All  they  that  are  to  be  received  as  pastors  amongst 


352  LETTER  VI. 

"  us,  whilst  they  are  yet  with  their  own  people,  are  to  entreat 
"  ours,  that  they  would  be  pleased  to  receive  them  to  the  ministry  ; 
"  and  to  pray  to  God  that  they  may  be  made  worthy  of  so  great 
"  an  office.  We  also  appoint  them  their  lectures,  and  set  them 
"  their  task,  causing  them  to  learn  by  memory  all  the  chapters  of 
"  St.  Matthew  and  St.  Jo/w,  and  all  the  epistles  that  are  canonical, 
"  and  a  good  part  of  the  writings  of  Solomon,  David,  and  the 
"  prophets.  Afterwards,  having  produced  good  testimonials,  and 
"  being  well  approved  for  their  sufficiency,  they  are  received  with 
"  imposition  of  hands  into  the  office  of  teachers.  He  that  is  ad- 
"  milled  in  ihe  last  place,  shall  not  do  any  thing  wilhout  the  leave 
"  or  allowance  of  him  that  was  admitted  before  him.  As  also  he 
"  that  was  admitted  first,  shall  do  nothing  without  the  leave  of  his 
"  associates,  to  the  end  that  all  things,  with  us,  may  be  done  in 
"  order.  Diet  and  apparel  are  given  unto  us  freely,  and  by  way 
"  of  alms,  and  thai  with  sufficiency,  by  those  good  people  whom  we 
"  teach.  Amongst  other  powers  and  abilities  which  God  hath 
"  given  lo  his  servanls,  he  hath  given  authority  to  choose  leaders, 
"  to  rule  the  people,  and  to  ordain  elders  in  their  charges. — 
"  When  any  of  us,  the  aforesaid  pastors,  falls  into  any  gross  sins, 
"  he  is  both  excommunicated,  and  prohibited  to  preach."  Art.  4. 
"  Our  Pastors  do  call  assemblies  once  every  year,  to  determine  of 
"  all  affairs  in  a  general  Synod."* 

In  another  Confession  of  Faith,  drawn  up  about  the  year  1220, 
they  declare  that  the  functions  of  ministers  consisl  in  "  preaching 
the  word  and  administering  sacraments,"  and  that "  all  other  minis- 
terial things  may  be  reduced  to  the  aforesaid."  Speaking  of  the 
rite  of  confirmation,  and  of  the  Popish  claims  that  it  must  be  ad- 
ministered by  a  bishop,  they  assert,  that  "  il  has  no  ground  at  all 
u  in  Scripture  ;  lhat  it  was  introduced  by  the  Devil's  instigation, 
«  lo  seduce  the  people;  that  by  such  means  they  mighl  be  induced 
"  the  more  to  believe  the  ceremonies,  and  ihe  necessity  of  ihe 
«  bishops."* 

In  the  same  work,  (chap.  4.)  it  is  expressly  and  repeatedly 
asserted,  thai  the  Synods  of  the  Waldenses  were  composed  of 

*  PERHIK'S  History  of  the  Old  Waldenses,  Part  n.  Book  v.  Chap.  7. 
t  Ibid.  Chap.  8. 


TESTIMONY   OF  THE  REFORMERS.  353 

ministers  and  elders.  This  mode  of  speaking  is  surely  not  Epis- 
copal. 

The  same  historian  tells  us,  that  Waldo,  (from  whose  name  that 
of  the  Waldenses  is  said  to  be  derived,)  "  upon  his  departure  from 
"  Lyons,  came  into  Dauphiny,  and  thence,  having  erected  some 
"  churches,  and  laid  the  foundation  of  those  which  have  been  mi- 
"  raculously  preserved  there  to  this  day,  he  went  into  Languedoc, 
((  and  left  some  notable  pastors  there,  who  set  up  and  governed 
"  those  churches,  which  afterwards  cost  the  pope  and  his  clergy  so 
"  much  pains  to  destroy."*  Now  it  is  certain  that  Waldo  himself 
was  no  prelate ;  neither  can  we  suppose  that  the  pastors  whom  he 
left  in  Languedoc  were  prelates.  Yet  these  pastors  set  up  and 
governed  churches. 

In  perfect  coincidence  with  all  this,  is  the  testimony  of  Gillis,  in 
his  History  of  the  Waldenses.  This  writer,  like  Perrin,  was  one 
of  the  pastors  of  that  people,  and  therefore  perfectly  qualified  to 
give  an  account  of  their  peculiar  doctrines  and  practices.  He 
speaks  familiarly  of  the  pastors  of  their  churches,  in  the  Presby- 
terian style.  He  says,  ''  These  pastors,  in  their  ordinary  assem- 
"  blies,  came  together  and  held  a  synod  once  a  year,  and  most 
"  generally  in  the  month  of  September,  at  which  they  examined 
"  the  students,  and  admitted  them  to  the  ministry."  Chap.  n.  p.  12. 

In  their  Confession  of  Faith,  which  Gillis  inserts  at  length,  in 
the  "  addition"  to  his  work,  p.  490,  and  which  he  expressly  in- 
forms us  was  the  confession  of  the  ancient  as  well  as  the  modern 
Waldenses  ;  in  Article  31,  they  declare,  "  It  is  necessary  for  the 
"  church  to  have  pastors  esteemed  sufficiently  learned,  and  exem- 
plary in  their  conduct,  as  well  to  preach  God's  word,  as  to  admi- 
"  nister  the  sacraments,  and  watch  over  the  sheep  of  Jesus  Christ, 
"  together  with  the  elders  and  deacons,  according  to  the  rules  of 
"  good  and  holy  church  discipline,  and  the  practice  of  the  primi- 
"  live  church." 

Here  is  better  testimony  than  Thuanus  or  Walsingham,  than 
Mosheim  or  Allix.  Here  are  the  declarations  of  the  Waldenses 
themselves.  And  I  will  venture  to  say  that  there  is  not  a  syllable 
in  the  above  extracts  which  has  the  most  distant  appearance  of 

*  Part  ii.  Book  n.  Chap.  9. 
2Y 


354  LETTER  VI. 

prelacy.  On  the  contrary,  they  all  bear  the  most  decisive  indica- 
tions of  Presbyterian  parity.  But  besides  this,  Bellarmine  acknow- 
ledges that  the  Waldenses  denied  the  divine  right  of  prelacy.  Me- 
dina, in  the  council  of  Trent,  declared  that  the  Waldenses  were 
of  the  same  mind  with  Aerius  on  this  subject.  And  the  learned 
Episcopalian,  professor  Raignolds,  in  his  famous  letter  to  Sir 
Francis  Knollys,  asserts,  that  the  Waldenses,  and  all  others  who 
had  distinguished  themselves  asopposers  of  popery,  and  as  reform- 
ers of  the  church,  for  500  years,  prior  to  the  seventeenth  century, 
had  uniformly  taught  that  «  all  pastors,  whether  styled  bishops 
"  or  priests,  have  one  and  the  same  authority  by  the  word  of 
«  God." 

Dr.  Bowden  also  insists,  in  opposition  to  my  statement,  that  the 
Bohemian  churches  were  episcopal,  in  his  sense  of  the  word.  In 
this,  however,  as  in  the  former  case,  he  is  contradicted  by  the  most 
unquestionable  testimony.  In  their  Confession,  there  is  not  only 
a  profound  silence  as  to  any  distinction  or  difference  of  degrees 
among  pastors ;  but,  what  is  more  decisive,  they  place  ordination, 
and  excommunication,  as  well  as  preaching  the  gospel,  not  in  the 
power  of  one,  but  in  the  hands  of  presbyters  and  brethren  of  the 
ministry.  And  in  their  Book  of  Order,  or  Discipline,  p.  20,  we 
have  the  following  express  words.  "  It  is  true,  the  Bohemians  have 
"  certain  bishops,  or  superintendents,  who  are  conspicuous  for  age 
"  and  gifts ;  and  chosen  by  the  suffrages  of  all  the  ministers,  for 
"  the  keeping  of  order,  and  to  see  that  all  the  rest  do  their  office. 
"  Four,  or  five,  or  six  such  have  they,  as  need  requires  ;  and  each 
"  of  these  has  his  diocese.  But  the  dignity  of  these  above  other 
"  ministers,  is  not  founded  in  the  prerogative  of  honours  or  reve- 
"  nues,  but  oflabours  and  cares  for  others.  And,  according  to 
"  the  apostles'  rules,  a  presbyter  and  bishop  are  one  and  the  same 
"  thing."  But  it  is  to  be  presumed  that  Dr.  Bowden  will  not  doubt 
a  moment  longer,  when  he  is  told,  that  even  his  own  favourite  high- 
church  historian,  Dr.  Heylin,  explicitly  grants  that  the  Bohemian 
churches  were  not  episcopal,  either  in  principle  or  practice.  In 
his  History  of  the  Presbyterians,  p.  409,  410.  there  is  the  follow- 
ing decisive  passage.  «  About  the  year  1400,  we  find  a  strong 
"  party  to  be  raised  amongst  the  Bohemians,  against  some  super- 
"  stitions  and  corruptions  in  the  church  of  Rome  ;  occasioned,  as 
"  some  say,  by  reading  the  works  of  Wicklife,  and  by  the  diligence 


TESTIMONY  OF  THE  REFORMERS.  355 

"  of  Picardus,  a  Fleming,  as  is  affirmed  by  some  others,  from  whom 
"  they  had  the  name  of  Picards.  Cruelly  persecuted  by  their  own 
"  kings,  and  publicly  condemned  in  the  council  of  Constance,  they 
"  continued  constant,  notwithstanding,  to  their  own  persuasions. 
"  In  this  condition  they  remained  till  the  preaching  of  Luther,  and 
"  the  receiving  of  the  Augustan  Confession  in  most  parts  of  the 
"  empire,  which  gave  them  so  much  confidence  as  to  purge  them- 
"  selves  from  all  former  calumnies,  by  publishing  a  declaration  of 
"  their  faith  and  doctrine  ;  which  they  presented  at  Vienna  to  the 
"  Archduke  Ferdinand,  about  ten  years  before  chosen  king  of  Bo- 
"  hernia  ;  together  with  a  large  apology  prefixed  before  it.  By 
"  which  Confession  it  appears  that  they  ascribe  no  power  to  the 
"  civil  magistrate  in  the  concernments  of  the  church  ;  that  they 
"  had  fallen  upon  a  way  of  ordaining  ministers  amongst  them- 
"  selves,  without  recourse  unto  the  bishop,  or  any  such  superior 
"  officer  as  a  superintendent ;  and  finally,  that  they  retained  the 
"  use  of  excommunication,  and  other  ecclesiastical  censures,  for 
"  the  chastising  of  irregular  and  scandalous  persons." 

As  to  the  observations  made  by  Dr.  Bowden  and  his  clerical 
friend  in  Philadelphia,  on  the  testimony  of  Thuanus,  Enceas  Syl- 
vius, and  Walsingham,  respecting  the  Waldenses  and  the  Bohe- 
mian Brethren,  I  consider  them  as  unworthy  of  notice.  It  would 
be  easy  for  me  to  show,  that  these  writers  really  say  what  I  ascribe 
to  them  ;  and  that  they  are  entitled  to  credit.  It  would  also  be  easy 
to  produce  passages  from  Alphonso  de  Castro,  Voetius,  and  other 
learned  writers,  who,  in  the  most  positive  terms,  give  the  same 
account  of  those  celebrated  witnesses  for  the  truth.  But  it  is  un- 
necessary. The  authority  of  their  own  historians  and  confessions 
of  faith  is  paramount  to  every  other.* 

*  Among-  the  few  gratifications  which  this  controversy  has  afforded 
me,  none  of  the  least  is,  that  it  has  led  me  to  peruse,  with  particular  care, 
the  history  and  the  confessions  of  the  Waldenses,  who  are  allowed,  by  all  pro, 
testants,  to  have  been  the  purest  part  of  the  Christian  church  during-  the 
dark  ages.  Their  coincidence  with  our  church,  in  almost  all  respects, 
both  of  doctrine  and  discipline,  is  really  remarkable.  Our  Baptist  breth- 
ren, among  other  advocates  of  error,  have  sometimes  ventured  to  assert, 
with  confidence,  that  the  Waldenses  were  anti-psedobaptists.  I  take 
for  granted  that  those  who  have  made  this  assertion,  never  read  the  an- 
cient confessions  of  that  celebrated  people.  In  those  confessions,  and 
other  authentic  documents  concerning-  them,  the  pxdobaptist  doctrine  is 
unequivocally  and  strongly  maintained. 


356  LETTER  VI.    • 

Dr.  Bowden  does  not  deny  that  WickUffe  held  the  doctrine  of 
Presbyterian  parity.  But  in  order  to  diminish  the  weight  of  this 
fact,  he  endeavours  to  destroy  the  character  of  that  illustrious  reform- 
er, by  repeating  the  accusations  brought  against  him  by  some 
virulent  papists.  I  must  say  that  I  expected  more  prudence,  if  not 
more  consistency,  from  this  gentleman.  It  is  really  astonishing  to 
find  a  protestant  divine  so  often  obliged  to  avail  himself  of  the  ar- 
guments, the  cavils,  and  even  the  violence  of  papists,  in  order  to 
support  his  cause.  But  his  attempt,  in  this  instance,  is  as  impotent 
as  it  is  reprehensible.  WickUffe  will jcostinue  to  be  hailed  as  the 
"  morning  star  of  the  reformation,''  and  honoured  as  an  eminent 
"  witness  for  the  truth,"  and  that  by  the  great  body  of  learned  and 
pious  Episcopalians,  as  well  as  others  ,when  the  slanders  with  which 
his  character  has  been  aspersed  shall  have  "  gone  the  way  of  all 
such  mis-begotten  things." 

With  respect  to  Tyndal,  Lambert,  Barnes,  Hamilton,  and  other 
distinguished  martyrs  for  the  truth  in  Great  Britain,  before  the 
time  of  Cranmer,  it  is  notorious  that  they,  with  one  voice,  main- 
tained the  doctrine  of  Presbyterian  parity.  Dr.  Bowden,  indeed, 
denies  this,  with  respect  to  Tyndal  and  Lambert,  or  rather 
endeavours  to  put  an  unnatural  gloss  on  their  language.  It  really 
surprises  me  that  such  an  attempt  should  be  made  by  a  gentleman 
who  professes  to  be  acquainted  with  the  history  of  the  reformation 
in  Britain. 

But  Dr.  Bowden  seems  to  be  most  of  all  offended  at  my  having 
asserted,  that  archbishop  Cranmer,  and  the  fathers  of  the  reform- 
ation in  England,  generally,  believed  that  bishop  and  presbyter 
were  the  same,  by  divine  right ;  and  that  ministerial  parity  was 
the  doctrine  and  practice  of  the  primitive  church.  He  denies  this 
position  with  warmth  and  confidence;  and  insists  that  those  vene- 
rable reformers  were  firm  believers  in  the  divine  institution  of 
prelacy.  Mr.  How  takes  the  same  ground,  with  even  greater 
warmth,  and  with  much  acrimonious  remark.  On  this  point,  my 
observations  shall  be  few  and  short. 

Dr.  Bowden,  in  many  of  his  statements  concerning  the  reforma- 
tion in  England,  avowedly  relies  on  the  authority  of  Heylin  and 
Collier.  With  respect  to  these  writers,  I  think  proper,  once  for 
all,  to  declare,  that  I  place  no  reliance  either  on  the  candour  or  the 
truth  of  their  representations.  And  of  course  that  no  alleged  fact, 
which  does  not  rest  on  some  other  testimony,  will  be  acknow- 


TESTIMONY  OF  THE  REFORMERS.  357 

ledged  by  me.  The  learned  and  able  editors  of  the  Christian 
Observer,  who,  as  was  before  observed,  are  warm  Episcopalians, 
speak  of  these  writers  in  the  following  manner:  "  Mr.  Daubeny," 
say  they,  "  in  many  of  his  references  to  historical  facts,  and  in  the 
"  deductions  made  from  them,  professedly  follows  authorities  of  a 
"  highly  exceptionable  nature.  Every  reader  who  is  conversant 
"  with  the  present  subject  of  debate,  knows  how  forcibly  this 
"  remark  applies  to  the  writings  of  Collier  and  Heylin.  We 
"  speak  from  a  careful  comparison  of  what  they  have  written,  with 
"  the  sources  from  which  they  drew,  or  might  have  drawn  their 
"  materials — when  we  affirm,  that  in  all  matters  immediately 
"  bearing  upon  the  Calvinistic  controversy,  they  are  most  unsafe 
"  guides.  Of  Dr.  Heylin,  in  particular,  we  have  no  hesitation  in 
"  saying,  that  we  do  not  know  of  any  author,  ancient  or  modern,  in 
"  whose  pages  is  to  be  found  a  larger  portion  of  false  reasonings, 
"  incorrect  statements,  and  palpable  misrepresentations."*  Bishop 
Burnet,  in  the  preface  to  his  History  of  the  Reformation,  declares, 
"  Either  Heylin  was  very  ill  informed,  or  very  much  led  by  his 
"  passions ;  and  being  wrought  on  by  most  violent  prejudices, 
"  against  some  that  were  concerned  in  that  time,  delivers  many 
(( things  in  such  a  manner,  and  so  strangely,  that  one  would  think 
"  he  had  been  secretly  set  on  to  it  by  those  of  the  church  of  Home. 
u  In  one  thing  he  is  not  to  be  excused,  that  he  never  vouched  any 
"  authority  for  what  he  writ,  which  is  not  to  be  forgiven  any  who 
"  write  of  transactions  beyond  their  own  time,  and  deliver  new 
"  things  not  known  before.  So  that  upon  what  grounds  he  wrote 
"  a  great  deal  of  his  book  we  can  only  conjecture,  and  many  in 
"  their  guesses  are  not  apt  to  be  very  favourable  to  him."  Of  the 
same  wretched  bigot  and  calumniator,  Bishop  Barlow  uses  this 
strong  language — "  Peter  Heylin 's  angry,  and  (to  our  church  and 
truth)  scandalous  writings."! 

I  had  stated  that  the  Bishop's  Book  composed  by  Cranmer,  and 
several  other  prelates,  in  1537,  and  subscribed  by  nineteen  bishops, 
and  the  lower  house  of  convocation,  expressly  declared  that  in  the 
New  Testament,  there  is  no  mention  made  of  any  other  ecclesias- 
tical orders  "  than  deacons  or  ministers,  and  presbyters  or  bishops? 

*  Christ.  Obs.  Vol.  III.  p.  429. 

f  Barlow' '«  Genuine  Remains,  p.  181. 


358  LETTER  VI. 

I  also  asserted,  that  another  book,  drawn  up  and  published  by  the 
same  high  authority,  in  1542,  taught,  in  the  most  explicit  terras, 
a  similar  doctrine.  To  this  Dr.  Bowden  replies  that  he  has  ex- 
amined Collier,  who  undertakes  to  give  an  abstract  of  both  these 
books,  and  that  he  does  not  find  in  him  "  a  syllable  of  what  I  have 
quoted,  but  much  to  the  contrary.*'  My  authorities  are  Calamy's 
Defence  of  Moderate  Nonconformity,  p.  91.  and  NeaPs  History  of 
the  Puritans,  in  both  which  the  writers  profess  to  quote  the  very 
words  of  the  books  in  question  :  And  whether  a  direct  and  posi- 
tive statement,  by  authors  of  undoubted  character,  does  not  more 
than  countervail  the  silence  of  a  writer,  who,  as  Episcopalians 
themselves  acknowledge,  is  not  to  be  depended  on,  let  every  im- 
partial reader  decide. 

Now  when  it  is  considered,  that  those  venerable  reformers  un- 
questionably drew  up  and  published  the  books  which  have  been 
just  mentioned :  When  we  find  professor  Raignolds,  one  of  the 
most  learned  and  pious  episcopal  divines  of  his  day,  and  who  lived 
within  about  half  a  century  after  Cranmer  and  his  associates, 
expressly  asserting  that  they  did  not  place  prelacy  on  the  footing 
of  divine  right:*  When  we  find  bishop  Stilling  fleet,  in  his  Ireni- 
cum,  and  several  other  eminent  episcopal  divines,  strongly  assert- 
ing the  same  thing,  not  as  their  opinion  merely,  but  as  a  fact: 
And  when  we  find  Dr.  White,  of  Pennsylvania,  now  bishop  of  {he 
episcopal  church  in  that  state,  declaring,  after  the  best  examination 
that  he  had  been  able  to  give  the  subject,^that  those  illustrious 
divines  did  not  establish  or  defend  prelacy  as  a  matter  of  divine 
rightt — When  these  things  are  considered,  I  presume  every 
impartial  judge  will  admit,  that  they  form  a  mass  of  evidence 
incomparably  more  weighty  than  the  opinions  of  Dr.  Bowden  and 
Mr.  How,  with  the  partial  and  prejudiced  Collier  to  aid  them. 

I  asserted,  that,  about  the  year  1547,  in  an  assembly  of  divines 
called  by  Edward  VI.  archbishop  Cranmer,  in]answer  to  a  question 
respecting  the  office  of  bishops  and  presbyters,  replied,  "  bishops 
and  priests  were  at  one  time,  and  were  not  two  things,  but  owe 
office  in  the  beginning  of  Christ's  religion."  And  that  two  other 

*  See  my  former  Letters,  p.  160. 

f  The  Case  of  the  Episcopal  Churches  in  the  United  States  considered. 
12mo.  Philad.  1782. 


TESTIMONY  OF  THE  REFORMERS.  359 

bishops,  together  with  Dr.  fiedmayn,  and  Dr.  Cox,  delivered  a 
similar  opinion  in  still  stronger  terms ;  and  that  several  of  them 
quoted  Jerome  as  a  decisive  authority  in  support  of  their  opinion. 

To  this,  Dr.  Bowden  replies,  in  the  Jirst  place,  that  he  can  see 
nothing  in  Cranmer's  answer  inconsistent  with  Episcopal  pre-emi- 
nence. Indeed  !  Were  any  one  to  ask  Dr.  B.  himself,  as  King 
Edward  did  that  assembly,  "  Whether  bishops  or  priests  were 
first ;  and  if  the  priests  were  first,  whether  the  priests  made  the 
bishops  ?"  would  he  answer  as  Cranmer  did ;  that  bishops  and 
priests  were  not  two  things  in  the  beginning  of  Christ's  religion, 
but  one  and  the  same  office  ?  Could  he  lay  his  hand  on  his  heart, 
and  say  that  he  would  consider  such  an  answer  as  agreeable  to  his 
principles  ?  The  archbishop  not  only  declares  that  the  names  of 
bishop  and  priest  were  interchangeably  applied;  but  that  they 
were  one  thing  or  one  office  in  the  beginning  of  Christ's  religion. 
The  Bishop  of  London's  answer,  in  the  same  assembly,  is  in  a 
similar  strain.  "  I  think,"  says  he,  "  the  bishops  were  Jirst;  and 
"  yet  I  think  it  is  not  of  importance  whether  the  priest  then  made 
u  the  bishop,  or  the  bishop  the  priest ;  considering  (after  the  sen- 
"  tence  of  St.  Jerome)  that  in  the  beginning  of  the  church  there 
"  was  no  (or  if  it  were,  very  small)  difference  between  a  bishop 
"  and  a  priest,  especially  touching  the  signification."  The  man 
who  can  say  that  this  answer  only  asserts  the  indiscriminate  appli- 
cation of  names  in  the  primitive  church,  must  have  a  strange  me- 
thod of  interpreting  language. 

Dr.  B.'s  second  objection  to  my  argument  drawn  from  this 
answer,  is,  that  the  assembly,  in  which  Cranmer,  and  his  associates 
delivered  these  opinions,  was  not  called  in  1547,  but  seven  years 
before,  in  the  reign  of  Henry  VIII.  when  the  minds  of  the  Reform- 
ers, just  emerging  from  the  darkness  of  Popery  were  unsettled  and 
immature.  He  asserts,  that  afterwards,  on  further  inquiry,  they 
entertained  a  different  opinion.  In  this  representation  also  Mr. 
How  concurs. 

It  is  certain  that  Stittingjteet,  with  the  original  manuscripts  re- 
lating to  this  subject  in  his  hand,  declares  that  this  assembly  was 
called  by  Edward  VI.  about  the  year  1547.  It  is  certain  that 
Bishop  Burnet  quotes  the  very  same  manuscripts,  under  the  name 
of  Bishop  Stilling fleet's.  And  it  is  equally  certain  that  the  former 


360  LETTER  VI. 

does  not  charge  the  latter  with  mistake  in  his  date.  I  readily  grant, 
however,  that  when  the  several  passages  of  these  two  writers  are 
carefully  compared,  it  is  not  easy  to  decide  on  the  correct  date, 
with  absolute  certainty.*  But  at  whatever  period  this  assembly 
was  called,  Bishop  Burnet  speaks  of  the  answers  which  its  mem- 
bers gave  in  the  following  strong  terms  of  approbation.  "  This 
"  paper  the  reader  will  find  in  the  collection,  of  which,  though  it 
61  be  somewhat  large,  yet  I  thought  such  pieces  were  of  too  great 
"  importance  not  to  be  communicated  to  the  world ;  since  it  is 
"  perhaps  as  great  an  evidence  of  the  ripeness  of  their  proceedings, 
"  as  can  be  shown  in  any  church,  or  any  age  of  it."t 

Both  Dr.  Bowden  and  Mr.  How  assert  that  Archbishop  Cran- 
mer  published  a  Catechism  in  1548,  and  a  Sermon,  about  the  same 
time,  in  both  which  they  assure  us  he  delivered  doctrines  "  as  high- 
ly Episcopal  as  any  thing  can  be."  Dr.  Bowden  has  given  a 
short  extract  from  the  latter  of  these  publications,  and  took  care, 
no  doubt,  to  select  the  strongest  and  most  decisive  passage  he 
could  find.  But,  strange  to  tell !  this  passage  affords  no  proof 
that  the  archbishop  believed  in  the  divine  institution  of  prelacy  at 
all.  Tt  speaks  of  the  ministry  of  the  word  being  derived  from  the 
apostles  by  the  imposition  of  hands.  And  do  not  many  Presby- 
terians speak  the  same  language  ?  It  speaks  of  the  apostles  making 
bishops  and  priests.  And  does  not  every  Presbyterian  grant  that 
there  were  many  presbyters  in  the  apostles'  days  who  had  no  pas- 
toral charge,  and  who  were,  of  course,  no  bishops  ?  Is  Dr.  B.  un- 
able to  understand  this  ?  or  does  he  close  his  eyes  against  it  ?  I 
take  for  granted  that  all  Cranmer's  "  high  church  notions,"  as  Mr. 
How  calls  them,  if  candidly  examined,  would  be  found  to  be  of  a 
similar  kind. 

Dr.  Bowden  admits  that  in  the  13th  year  of  the  reign  of  Eliza- 
beth, there  was  an  act  passed  which  admitted  into  the  Church  of 
England,  those  who  had  received  ordination  in  the  foreign  reformed 

*  Dr.  Bowden  undoubtedly  mistakes  when  he  dates  this  assembly  in 
1538,  and  assigns  as  a  reason  that  a  certain  paper  is  signed  by  Fox,  Bishop 
of  Hereford,  who  died  that  year.  Dr.  B.  is  here  confounding  two  very 
different  things,  as  he  will  instantly  see  by  comparing  several  passages 
in  Burnet,  Vol.  i.  p.  248.  289.  Collection  XXI.  Addenda  V. 

f  Hist.  Mef.  i.  p.  289. 


TESTIMONY  OF  THE  REFORMERS.  361 

churches,  on  their  subscribing  the  articles  of  faith.  Now  as  there 
was  no  other,  strictly  speaking,  than  Presbyterian  ordination  in 
any  of  the  foreign  reformed  churches,  it  is  manifest  that  this  was  a 
great  national  acknowledgment  of  the  validity  of  such  ordinations. 
Dr.  Bowden  contends,  however,  that,  from  the  language  of  Strype, 
in  his  Annals,  it  is  evident  that  this  act  was  not  designed  to  recog- 
nize as  valid  the  ordinations  in  all  the  reformed  churches;  but  only 
to  comprehend,  besides  the  Papists,  "  such  ministers  as  had 
received  their  ordination  in  some  of  those  churches  when  they  were 
in  exile  under  Queen  Maryf  And  by  the  phrase  "  some  of  the 
foreign  reformed  churches,"  Dr.  B.  thinks  was  probably  meant, 
the  churches  of  Sweden,  Denmark,  and  'Bohemia,  which  he  insists 
were  episcopal  in  their  form.  It  will,  hereafter,  be  shown,  that 
none  of  these  churches  were  episcopal  in  Dr.  Bowden's  sense  of 
the  word;  and,  therefore,  that  the  ordinations  in  question,  even  if 
they  had  been  performed  in  those  churches,  would  have  been 
nothing  to  his  purpose.  But  this  is  not  the  worst  part  of  the 
Doctor's  blunder.  It  is  notorious  that  not  one  of  the  exiles  under 
the  reign  of  Mary  ever  settled  in  Sweden,  Denmark,  or  Bohemia, 
or  ever  received  ordination  in  any  of  those  countries.  I  appeal  to 
all  the  accounts  of  their  exile,  by  whomsoever  written,  for  the  truth 
of  this  fact.  Some  of  those  persecuted  protestants  went  to  France 
and  Flanders;  some  to  Geneva;  and  others  to  those  parts  of 
Germany  and  Switzerland,  in  which  the  reformation  had  taken 
place,  particularly  to  Embden,  Strasburg,  Zurich  and  Frankfort, 
in  all  which  countries,  no  other  ordination  than  that  by  presbyters 
existed.  I  repeat  it,  none  of  the  exiles  either  settled  in  Sweden, 
Denmark,  or  Bohemia,  or  were  ordained  there.  Was  Dr.  Bowden 
ignorant  of  this  fact  ?  Or,  if  he  knew  it,  to  what  shall  we  ascribe 
his  erroneous  representation  ?  But  I  forbear  further  to  expose, 
what,  I  trust,  was  only  an  unintentional  error. 

As  another  proof  that  the  reformers  of  the  Church  of  England 
did  not  hold  the  excluding,  jure  divino  doctrine  of  prelacy  which 
many  of  their  successors  in  that  Church  have  espoused,  I  produced 
a  public  document  under  the  hand  of  the  Archbishop  Grindal,  in 
which  he  gave  a  formal  license  to  a  Presbyterian  minister,  as  one 
who  had  been  "  admitted  and  ordained  to  sacred  orders,  and  the 
holy  ministry, by  the  imposition  of  hands,  according  to  the  laudable 
form  and  rite  of  the  reformed  Church  of  Scotland." 
2Z 


362  LETTER  VI. 

To  take  away  the  force  of  this  concession  on  the  part  of  Arch- 
bishop Grindal,  Dr.  Bowden,  with  much  zeal,  urges  several  con- 
siderations. 

The  Jlrst  is,  that  this  prelate  was  not  one  of  the  reformers  of  the 
Church  of  England,  at  all ;  and  that  it  is  nothing  less  than  imposi- 
tion on  my  readers  to  place  him  among  them.  This  is  truly  a 
wonderful  assertion !  Has  Dr.  Bowden  ever  read  Strype's  Life 
of  Grindal?  If  he  has  not,  I  would  recommend  to  him  to  procure 
and  peruse  it,  before  he  undertakes  again  to  write  on  this  subject. 
From  that  work  he  will  learn,  that  Grindal  was  an  active,  popular 
clergyman,  and  a  decisive  advocate  of  the  reformation  in  the  reign 
of  Edward  VI .  5  that  he  was  nominated  to  a  bishopric  by  that 
monarch  ;  that  he  was  so  obnoxious  to  the  Catholic  party,  on  ac- 
count of  his  exertions  in  the  cause  of  the  reformation,  as  to  Be  com- 
pelled to  leave  the  kingdom,  on  the  accession  of  Mary  to  the 
throne  ;  that,  immediately  on  his  return,  he,  with  others,  was  em- 
ployed by  queen  Elizabeth  in  reforming  the  liturgy  and  offices  of 
the  Church  5  that  he  was  soon  made  bishop  of  London ;  that  he 
was  afterwards  successively  promoted  to  the  Archbishoprics  of 
York  and  Canterbury,  in  all  which  stations  h'e  signalized  himself 
as  a  reformer.  But,"  he  was  not  archbishop  until  the  reign  of  Eliza- 
beth." -And  was  no  man  ever  ranked  among  the  reformers  unless 
he  was  an  Archbishop  ?  Then  Cranmer  did  not  become  a  reformer 
until  some  years  after  he  had  begun  to  struggle  for  the  purification 
of  the  Church ;  and  Ridley,  Latimer,  and  Hooper,  to  say  nothing 
of  several  others,  their  illustrious  contemporaries,  were  never  re- 
formers at  all !  But  this  plea  is  really  beneath  further  notice. 

Another  mode  of  getting  rid  of  this  difficulty,  to  which  Dr.  Sow- 
den  resorts,  is  to  attack  the  character  of  Grindal,  and  to  endea- 
vour to  make  it  appear,  that  he  was  so  "fanatical"  and  "  irregular," 
that  his  opinion  or  decision  on  a  subject  of  this  kind  ought  not  to 
be  considered  as  of  any  weight.  I  am  perfectly  willing  to  leave 
this  insinuation  to  be  estimated  as  it  deserves,  by  all  who  are  toler- 
ably acquainted  with  the  history  of  the  Reformation  in  England, 
and  the  agency  of  the  pious  archbishop  in  that  glorious  struggle. 

But,  one  of  the  most  extraordinary  parts  of  Dr.  Bowden's  work, 
is  that  in  which  he  attempts  to  show  that  the  reformed  Church  of 
Scotland,  as  first  established  by  Knox  and  his  associates,  was  not 
Presbyterian  but  prelatical  in  its  form.  Nay,  he  goes  so  far  as  to 


TESTIMONY  OF  THE  REFORMERS.  363 

assert  in  conformity  with  the  misrepresentations  of  Sage,  Cottier, 
Spotswood,  and  Skinner,  that  in  that  church  ministerial  "  parity 
"  was  disclaimed ;  that  superintendents  with  Episcopal  jurisdiction 
"  were  established ;  and  that  Presbyterianism  had  no  existence  in 
"  that  country  until  1580,  twenty  years  after  the  reformation  was 
"  established."  The  man  who  can  write  thus,  discovers  a  want 
of  information,  or  a  force  of  prejudice  which  renders  him  a  much 
more  proper  object  of  compassion  than  of  resentment.  The  state- 
ment is  not  only  not  true,  but  diametrically  contrary  to  the  truth, 
and  advanced  in  direct  opposition  to  all  authentic  testimony.  This 
is  so  notoriously  the  case,  that  I  did  not  suppose  it  possible  for  any 
well  informed  man,  at  the  present  day,  to  give  such  a  representation 
as  Dr.  JBowden  has  given. 

The  model  of  the  Reformed  Church  of  Scotland,  as  established 
in  1560,  appears  in  the  First  Book  of  Discipline,  drawn  up  by 
Knox  and  others.  In  that  book,  in  chapter  fourth,  the  ministry 
is  spoken  of,  as  consisting  of  a  single  order,  in  the  same  language 
which  has  been  common  among  Presbyterians  ever  since  ;  nor  is 
there  the  least  hint  given  of  different  ranks  or  grades  of  ministers, 
much  less  of  such  an  hierarchy  as  was  then  established  in  England. 
In  the  7th  chapter,  Ruling  Elders  and  Deacons  are  described,  and 
their  duties  pointed  out ;  the  former  to  assist  the  minister  in  the 
government  of  his  flock,  and  the  latter  to  take  care  of  the  poor. 
And  in  other  parts  of  the  work,  the  government  of  the  Church  by 
Kirk  Sessions,  Presbyteries,  and  Synods,  is  expressly  laid  down. 
If  this  is  not  the  essence  of  Presbyterianism,  then  I  know  not  what 
is.  It  is  true,  in  that  book,  the  appointment  often  or  twelve  minis- 
ters, under  the  name  of  superintendents  is  recognized  and  directed. 
•But  it  is  as  true,  that  the  same  book  declares,  that  this  appoint- 
ment was  made,  not  because  superintendents  were  considered  as 
of  divine  institution,  or  an  order  to  be  observed  perpetually  in  the 
Kirk ;  but  because  they  were  compelled  to  resort  to  some  such 
expedient,  AT  THAT  TIME,  when  the  deficiency  of  well  qualified 
Protestant  ministers  was  so  great,  that  if  some  of  the  more  able  and 
pious  had  not  been  entrusted  with  much  larger  districts  than  single 
parishes,  in  which  to  preach  the  Gospel,  to  plant  Churches,  and 
to  superintend  the  general  interests  of  religion,  the  greater  part  of 
the  country  must  have  been  given  up,  either  to  popish  teachers,  or 
to  total  ignorance.  And  it  is  as  true,  that  the  powers  with  which 


364  LETTER  VI. 

those  superintendents  were  invested,  were,  in  all  respects,  essential- 
ly different  from  those  of  prelates.  They  did  not  confirm  ;  they-did 
not  exclusively  ordain;  they  had  no  episcopal  consecration;  they 
had  none  of  the  prerogatives  of  prelates ;  they  were  entirely  subject 
to  the  synodical  assemblies,  consisting  of  ministers  and  elders; 
they  were  appointed  by  men  who  were  known  to  be  Presbyterians 
in  principle  5  who,  in  the  very  act  of  appointing  them,  disclaimed 
prelacy  as  an  institution  of  Christ;  and  who  gave  the  strongest 
evidence  that  they  viewed  the  subject  in  this  light,  by  refusing  to 
make  the  former  bishops  superintendents,  lest  their  office  should 
be  abused,  and  afterwards  degenerate  into  the  "  old  power  of  the 
prelates."  In  short,  the  superintendents  were  only  the  agents  of 
the  synods,  for  managing  the  affairs  of  the  Church,  in  times 
of  peculiar  difficulty  and  peril ;  and  whenever  these  times  ceased, 
or  rather  before,  their  office  was  abolished.  They  were  no  more 
inconsistent  with  Presbyterian  parity,  than  the  practice  of  appoint- 
ing professors  of  divinity,  whose  certificates  shall  be  necessary 
to  the  introduction  of  every  candidate  into  the  ministry.  Yet  such 
professors  have  been  appointed  in  every  Presbyterian  Church  that 
was  able  to  provide  for  their  support. 

In  1 578,  the  Second  Book  of  Discipline  was  agreed  upon  and  pub- 
lished by  the  General  Assembly  of  the  Church  of  Scotland.  In  this 
book  the  plan  of  church  government  laid  down,  is  as  perfectly  Pres- 
byterian as  ever  was  formed.  Nay  more,  it  contains  a  positive  decla- 
ration that  diocesan  episcopacy  is  a  "  corruption  5"  that  a  scriptural 
bishop  is  the  pastor  of  a  single  church  or  congregation ;  and  that  the 
plan  of  giving  to  certain  ministers,  under  the  name  of  bishops,  a  pre- 
latical  authority  over  a  number  of  congregations,  and  their  pastors, 
is  a  popish  error.  It  even  goes  so  far  as  to  require  that  all  such  bishops 
then  in  the  kingdom  renounce  their  unscriptural  title  and  authority, 
and  submit  to  the  Presbyterian  order  of  the  Church,  or  that  they  be 
deposed  from  all  ecclesiastical  office,  and  excommunicated.  In  all 
this,  the  assembly  was  supported  by  an  act  of  parliament ;  and  thus 
prelacy  was  by  law  abolished.  And  yet,  "  Presbyterianism  had 
no  existence  in  Scotland  until  1580 !"  I  charitably  hope  that  Dr. 
J3owden,  when  he  made  this  representation,  had  never  read  either 
the  First  or  Second  Book  of  Discipline,  or  the  Acts  of  the  General 
Assembly  which  accompanied  those  public  documents. 

It  is  readily  granted  that  the  reformers  in  Scotland  carried  on 


TESTIMONY  OF  THE  REFORMERS.  365 

this  glorious  work  with  much  difficulty,  and  amidst  great  opposition. 
It  is  granted  that  in  1572,  and  again  1584,  the  most  violent  exer- 
tions were  made,  in  the  former  case,  by  some  ambitious  nobleman; 
and  in  the  latter,  by  the  king,  to  restore  prelacy ;  and  that  in  both 
cases,  there  was  a  partial  and  nominal  restoration  of  it  for  a  few 
months,  in  the  same  manner  as  the  progress  of  the  Reformation 
was  more  than  once,  and  grievously,  interrupted  in  England.  But 
it  is  notorious  that,  this  was  in  opposition  to  the  views  and  wishes 
of  all  the  principal  reformers.  It  is  notorious,  that,  even  in  those 
intervals  in  which  there  were  nominal  bishops,  candidates  for  the 
ministry  were  ordained,  not  by  them,  but  by  the  presbyteries.  And 
it  is  equally  notorious  that,  from  the  first  organization  of  presbyte- 
rianism  in  1560,  until  it  was  ultimately  and  permanently  established, 
the  great  body  both  of  the  clergy  and  laity,  who  manifested  friend- 
ship to  the  reformation  at  all,  were  decided  Presbyterians.  For 
the  truth  of  this  representation,  I  appeal  to  the  public  and  accre- 
dited documents  of  the  church ;  I  appeal  to  Knox,  to  Galdertoood, 
to  Woodrow,  to  Crookshank,  to  any  historian,  who  is  not  carried 
away  with  the  violent,  I  had  almost  said  insane  prejudice  of  Sage, 
Spotswood,  and  Cottier,  by  whom  subsequent  writers,  who  ought 
to  have  known  better,  have  suffered  themselves  to  be  misled.  Even 
Dr.  Heylin,  with  all  the  bitterness  of  his  prejudice,  in  his  History 
of  Presbyterianism,  gives  a  view  of  the  reformation  in  Scotland 
which  I  cannot  help  thinking  will  excite  a  blush  in  Dr.  B.  if  he 
should  ever  peruse  it,  and  should  remember  what  he  himself  has 
written. 

Though  Heylin  was  a  violent  €nemy  of  every  thing  like  Pres- 
bytery ;  and  though  he  wished  to  make  it  appear  that  the  first 
Scottish  reformers  did  not  admit  of  ministerial  parity,  in  the  strict 
sense  of  the  word ;  yet  he  was  forced  to  acknowledge  that  they 
adopted  a  plan  of  church  government,  of  which  the  "  predominant" 
features  were  Presbyterian.  And  he  confesses,  further,  that  even 
the  small  deviations  from  the  strict  Presbyterian  model  which  took 
place,  were  admitted  by  Knox  on  account  of  the  then  "  unsettled 
state  of  the  Church."*  The  same  historian,  in  another  work, 
declares  more  strongly,  "  Being  once  settled  in  orderly  and  con- 
"  stant  hierarchy,  they  (the  Scotch)  held  the  same,  until  the  refor- 

*  Hist.  Presbyter.  B.  v.  §  29. 


366  LETTER  VI. 

"  mation  began  by  Knox ;  when  he  and  his  associates,  approving 
"the  Genevan  Platform,  took  the  advantage  of  the  minority  of  King 
"  James  VI.  to  introduce  Presbyterian  discipline,  and  suppress  the 
«  Bishops."* 

Accordingly,  soon  after  the  first  establishment  of  the  reforma- 
tion in  Scotland,  J3eza,  whose  warm  attachment  to  Presbyterian- 
ism  is  universally  known,  wrote  to  Knox  in  the  following  language. 
"  But  I  would  have  you,  my  dear  Knox,  and  the  other  brethren, 
"  to  remember  that  which  is  before  your  eyes  ;  that  as  bishops 
"  brought  forth  the  papacy  ;  so  false  bishops,  the  relics  of  popery, 
"  shall  bring  epicurism  into  the  world.  They  that  desire  the  good 
"  and  safety  of  the  church,  let  them  take  heed  of  this  pest ;  and 
"  seeing  you  have  put  that  plague  to  flight,  I  heartily  pray  you 
"  never  to  admit  again  ;  although  it  may  seem  plausible,  under 
(t  the  pretence  of  keeping  unity ;  which  pretence  deceived  the  an- 
"  cient  fathers,  even  the  best  of  them.'7t 

Dr.  Bowden  seems  to  think  that,  if  bishops  had  been  the  leading 
reformers  in  Scotland,  as  they  were  in  England,  prelacy  would 
have  been  retained  in  the  former,  as  well  as  in  the  latter.  This  is 
only  saying  that  even  good  men,  who  enjoy  high  ecclesiastical  pre- 
eminence, and  corresponding  revenues,  when  two  plans  of  reform- 
ation are  offered  them,  will  be  most  likely  to  embrace  that .  which 
will  secure  the  continuance  of  their  honours  and  emoluments.  And 
does  Dr.  Bowden  really  think  that  this  affords  a  solid  argument  in 
favour  of  prelacy  ?  I  cannot  possibly  suppose  a  gentleman  of  his 
character  to  be  so  far  gone  in  absurdity.  Besides,  the  doctor  does 
not  appear  to  know,  that  three  Scotch  prelates,  viz.  the  bishops  of 
Orkney,  Galway,  and  Caithness,  DID  embrace  the  reformation, 
and  became  Presbyterian,  or  parochial  bishops.  And,  what  is 
still  more  worthy  of  notice,  it  is  well  known,  not  only  that  Knox 
himself  was  in  episcopal  orders,  and  was  a  popular  preacher  in 
England,  in  the  reign  of  Edward  VI. ;  but  also  that  a  bishopric 
was  offered  him,  which  he  refused,  because  he  considered  prelacy 
as  unlawful ;  or  as  having  "  quid  commune  cum  anti-christo.}>$ 
Accordingly,  when  John  Douglass  was  made  tulchan  (or  nominal) 

*  Cosmographie,  p.  332. 
f  Epist.  79. 

*  FULLER'S  Lives  of  the  Divines. 


TESTIMONY  OF  THE  REFORMERS.  367 

Bishop  of  St.  Andrews,  Knox  utterly  refused  to  ordain  him,  de- 
nouncing anathemas  both  against  the  giver  and  the  receiver.  And, 
when  this  refusal  was  imputed  to  unworthy  motives,  he  publicly 
declared,  in  a  sermon,  on  the  next  sabbath,  "  I  have  refused  a 
"  greater  bishopric  than  ever  it  was  ;  and  might  have  had  it  with 
"  the  favour  of  greater  men  than  he  hath  this  :  but  I  did  and  do 
"  repine,  for  discharge  of  my  conscience,  that  the  church  of  Scot- 
61  land  be  not  subject  to  that  order.'7* 

Let  us  now  pass  from  the  reformers  of  Great  Britain  to  those 
of  the  continent  of  Europe. 

Dr.  Bowden  would  persuade  us  that  Luther  also  believed  in  the 
divine  right  of  diocesan  episcopacy.  Of  this  reformer  he  speaks 
in  the  following  terms.  "  As  to  Luther,  he  professes  that  if  the  po- 
"  pish  bishops  would  cease  to  persecute  the  gospel,"  he  and  those 
of  his  communion, "  would  acknowledge  them  as  their  fathers,  and 
"  willingly  obey  their  authority,  which  (says  he)  we  find  supported 
tl  by  the  word  of  God.9  Consequently,  in  his  and  their  estimation, 
"  episcopacy  was  an  apostolic  institution."  Letter  15.  Dr.  Bowden 
has  not  given  us  the  least  hint  in  what  part  of  Luther's  writings 
this  declaration  is  to  be  found  ;t  and  I  shall  certainly  require  to  see 
it  with  my  own  eyes,  and  to  trace  its  connexion,  before  it  is  admit- 
ted as  an  authentic  testimony  of  that  reformer's  opinion.  I  make 
this  demand  with  the  more  confidence,  and  with  a  deeper  convic- 
tion of  its  justice,  because,  in  turning  over  the  works  of  Luther,  I 
find  numerous  passages,  which  speak,  directly  and  unequivocally, 
an  opposite  language  :  passages  which  Dr.  Bowden  certainly  could 
not  have  been  acquainted  with,  or  he  would  have  been  ashamed  to 
pen  the  above  cited  paragraph. 

It  were  easy  to  fill  several  letters  with  quotations,  strongly  in 
point,  from  this  illustrious  man.  The  following,  however,  will 
suffice. 

In  his  treatise,  De  Abroganda  Missa  Privata,  contained  in  the 
second  volume  of  his  works,f  remarking  on  Titus  i.  5.  he  makes 

*  Calderwood. 

f  Really,  considering  the  severity  with  which  Dr.  Bowden  censures 
me  for  not  being  in  all  cases  sufficiently  attentive  to  my  references,  and 
his  formal  and  solemn  promises  to  be  more  "  scholar  like"  himself,  this 
omission  occurs  by  far  too  frequently. 

$  My  edition  of  Luther's  works  is  in  seven  volumes,  folio,  printed  at 
Wittemberg,  1546—1552. 


368  LETTER    VI. 

the  following  explicit  declaration.  «  Here,  if  we  believe  that  the 
«  Spirit  of  Christ  spake  and  directed  by  Paul,  we  must  acknow- 
"  ledge  that  it  is  a  divine  appointment,  that  in  every  city  there  be 
"  a  plurality  of  bishops,  or  at  least  one.  It  is  manifest  also,  that, 
"  by  the  same  divine  authority,  he  makes  presbyters  and  bishops 
f(  to  be  one  and  the  same  thing;  for  he  says  that  presbyters  are  to 
cc  be  ordained  in  every  city,  if  any  can  be  found  who  are  blame- 
"  less,  because  a  bishop  ought  to  be  blameless." 

In  his  treatise  Adversus  Falso  Nominatum  Ordinem  Episcopo- 
rumf  Oper.  Tom.  Ibid.  p.  342.  remarking  on  the  same  passage 
of  scripture,  he  speaks  as  follows — "  Paul  writes  to  Titus  that  he 
"  should  ordain  elders  in  every  city.  Here,  I  think,  no  one  can 
"  deny  that  the  apostle  represents  bishop  and  elder  as  signifying 
"  the  same  thing.  Since  he  commands  Titus  to  ordain  elders  in 
"  every  city;  and  because  a  bishop  ought  to  be  blameless,  he  calls 
"  an  elder  by  the  same  title.  It  is,  therefore,  plain  what  Paul 
"  means  by  the  term  bishop,  viz.  a  man  eminently  good  and  up- 
"  right,  of  proper  age,  who  hath  a  virtuous  wife,  and  children  in 
"  subjection  in  the  fear  of  God.  He  wills  such  an  one  to  preside 
"  over  the  congregation,  in  the  ministry  of  the  word,  and  the  ad- 
"  ministration  of  the  sacraments.  Is  there  any  one  who  attends 
"  to  these  words  of  the  apostle,  together  with  those  which  precede 
"  and  follow,  so  hardened  as  to  deny  this  sense  of  them,  or  to  per- 
"  vert  them  to  another  meaning?" 

In  the  same  work,  p.  344,  345,  he  thus  speaks — "But  let  us 
"  hear  Paul  concerning  this  divine  ordination.  For  Luke  in  the 
"  20th  chapter  of  the  Acts  of  the  apostles,  writes  concerning 
"  him  in  this  manner.  From  Miletus,  having  sent  messengers  'to 
"  Ephesus,  he  collected  the  elders  of  the  church,  to  whom,  when 
tu  they  had  come  to  him,  he  thus  said — Take  heed  to  yourselves 
"  and  to  allthejlock  over  which  the  Holy  Ghost  hath  made  you 
"  overseers,  fyc.  But  what  new  thing  is  this  ?  Is  Paul  insane  ? 
"  Ephesus  was  but  a  single  city,  and  yet  Paul  openly  calls  all  the 

*  Whoever  will  take  the  trouble  to  look  into  this  treatise,  which  is  ex- 
pressly written  against  bishops,  as  a  seperate  and  pre-eminent  order,  will 
find  Luther  decidedly  maintaining  that  a  Scriptural  bishop  was  nothing 
more  than  a  pastor  of  a  single  congregation  ;  and  strongly  inveighing 
against  the  doctrine  that  bishops  are  an  order  above  pastors,  as  a  Popish 
error. 


TESTIMONY   OF  THE  REFORMERS.          369 

«  presbyters  or  elders,  by  the  common  style  of  bishops.  But  per- 
«  haps  Paul  had  never  read  the  legends,  the  miserably  patched  up 
«  fables,  and  the  sacred  decretals  of  ihe  papists  ;  Tor  how  otherwise 
"  would  he  have  dared  to  place  a  plurality  of  bishops  over  one 
"  city,  and  to  denominate  all  the  presbyters  of  that  one  city, 
"  bishops  ;  when  they  were  not  all  prelates,  nor  supported  a  train 
"  of  dependents,  and  pack  horses,  but  were  poor  and  humble  men. 
"  But,  to  be  serious,  you  see  plainly,  that  Jhe  Apostle  Paul  calls 
"  those  alone  bishops  who  preach  the  Gospel  to  the  people,  and 
"  administer  the  sacraments,  as,  in  our  times,  parish  ministers  and 
"  preachers  are  wont  to  do.  These,  therefore,  though  they 
"  preach  the  Gospel  in  small  villages  and  hamlets,  yet,  as  faithful 
"  ministers  of  the  word,  I  believe,  beyond  all  doubt,  possess,  of 
"  right,  the  title  and  name  of  bishop." 

A  little  after,  commenting  on  Philip,  i.  1.  he  says — "  Behold 
"  Paul,  speaking  of  Philippi,  which  was  a  single  city,  salutes  all 
"  the  believers,  together  with  the  bishops.  These  were,  beyond 
"  all  doubt,  the  presbyters,  whom  he  had  been  wont  to  appoint  in 
"  every  city.  This  now  is  the  third  instance  in  the  writings  of 
"  Paul,  in  which  we  see  what  God  and  the  Holy  Spirit  hath  ar> 
"  pointed,  viz.  that  those  alone,  truly  and  of  right,  are  to  be  called 
"  bishops  who  have  the  careof  ajlock  in  the  ministry  of  the  word, 
u  the  care  of  the  poor,  and  the  administration  of  the  sacraments, 
"  as  is  the  case  with  parish  ministers  in  our  age." 

In  the  same  work,  p.  346,  commenting  on  1  Peter  v.l.  he  says 
— "  Here  you  see  that  Peter,  in  the  same  manner  as  Paul 
"  had  done,  uses  the  terms  presbyter  and  bishop  to  signify  the 
"  same  thing.  He  represents  those  as  bishops  who  teach  the  peo- 
"  pie,  and  preach  the  word  of  God ;  and  he  makes  them  all  of 
"  equal  power,  and  forbids  them  to  conduct  themselves  as  if  they 
"  were  lords,  or  to  indulge  a  spirit  of  domination  over  their  flocks. 
"  He  calls  himself  a  fellow  presbyter,  plainly  teaching,  by  this 
"  expression,  that  all  parish  ministers,  and  bishops  of  cities^  were 
"  of  equal  authority  among  themselves;  that  in  what  pertained  to 
"  the  office  of  bishop,  no  one  could  claim  any  superiority  over  ano- 
"  ther ;  and  that  he  was  their  fellow  presbyter,  having  no  more 
"  power  in  his  own  city  than  others  had  in  theirs,  or  than  every 
"  one  of  them  had  in  his  own  congregation." 

In  his  Commentary  on  1  Peter  v.  1.  Oper.  Tom.  v.  p.  481.  he 
3  A 


370  LETTER  VI. 

thus  speaks — "  The  word  presbyter  signifies  an  elder.  It  has  the 
u  same  meaning  as  the  term  senators,  that  is,  men  who  on  account 
"  of  their  age,  prudence,  and  experience,  bear  sway  in  society. — 
"  In  the  same  manner  Christ  calls  his  ministers,  and  his  senate, 
*'  whose  duty  it  is  to  administer  spiritual  government,  to  preach 
u  the  word,  and  to  watch  over  the  church,  he  calls  them  elders. 
"  Wherefore  let  it  not  surprise  you,  if  this  name  is  now  very  dif- 
"  ferently  applied;  for  of  those  who  are  at  present  called  by  this 
ft  name,  the  scriptures  say  nothing.  Therefore  banish  the  present 
(t  order  of  things  from  your  eyes,  and  you  will  be  able  to  conceive 
"  of  the  fact  as  it  was.  When  Peter,  or  either  of  the  other  apos- 
"  ties,  came  to  any  city  where  there  were  Christians,  out  of  the 
"  number  he  chose  one  or  more  aged  men,  of  blameless  lives,  who 
t6  had  wives  and  children,  and  were  well  acquain  ted  with  the  scrip- 
"  tures,  to  be  set  over  the  rest.  These  were  called  presbyters,  that 
"  is  elders,  whom  both  Peter  and  Paul  also  style  bishops,  that 
u  we  may  know  that  bishops  and  presbyters  were  the  same.9' 

Again,  in  his  commentary  on  the  second  verse  of  the  same  chap- 
ter, he  says,  "  I  have  often  said,  that  if  we  would  wish  to  have 
"  the  Christian  commonwealth  rightly  established,  it  is  necessary 
"  that  there  be,  in  every  city,  three  or  four  bishops,  who  should 
"  superintend  the  church,  and,  if  any  thing  should  be  at  any  time 
"  delinquent  or  lost,  restore  it." 

But  this  is  not  all.  Luther  declared  his  principles  on  this  sub- 
ject by  his  practice,  as  well  as  by  his  writings.  He  was  ordained 
a  presbyter  in  the  Romish  church,  in  the  year  1507,  in  the  24th 
year  of  his  age.*  As  a  presbyter,  he  considered  himself  as  autho- 
rized to  ordain  others  to  the  gospel  ministry ;  and  accordingly, 
soon  after  assuming  the  character  of  a  reformer,  he  actually  did  or- 
dain.f  Nay,  he  went  a  step  further.  Though  a  firm  believer  in 
the  doctrine  of  the  primitive  parity  of  ministers,  he  seems  to  have 
considered  it  as  not  unlawful  to  have  diocesan  bishops  or  superin- 
tendents in  the  church,  when  either  the  form  of  the  civil  govern- 

*  Vid.  Gerhard,  De  Ministerio,  p.  147,  148.  The  same  fact  is  also  at- 
tested by  Zanchius.  In  IV,  Praecep.  p.  774.  Gerhard,  who  lived  not  long 
after  Luther,  expressly  asserts  that  he  was  ordained  a  presbyter,  with  the 
imposition  of  hands  in  the  year  above  mentioned. 

f  Melchior  Adam,  129. 


TESTIMONY  OF  THE  REFORMERS.  371 

raent,  or  the  habits  or  wishes  of  the  people  rendered  it  desirable ; 
always,  however,  placing  their  appointment  on  the  ground  of  human 
expediency  alone.  Accordingly,  in  the  year  154?,  when  an  episco- 
pal seat  within  the  electorate  of  Saxony  became  vacant,  Luther,  at 
the  request  of  the  elector,  though  himself  nothing  more  than  a  pres- 
byter, consecrated  Amsdorf  bishop  of  that  diocese.*  But  if  Luther 
had  believed  in  "  the  apostolic  institution  of  diocesan  episcopacy," 
as  Dr.  Bowden  tells  us  he  did,  could  he  have  acted  thus  ?  It  is  not 
possible.  It  would  have  been  a  grossness  of  inconsistency  and 
dishonesty  with  which  that  holy  reformer  was  never  charged. 

Nor  did  Luther  abandon  either  his  principles  or  his  practice,  on 
this  subject,  to  his  last  hour.  This  appears  from  the  following 
testimony  of  his  biographer,  concerning  what  occurred  a  few  days 
before  his  death.  "  From  the  29th  day  of  January  till  the  17th 
"  day  of  February,  he  was  continually  occupied  about  the  raatteis 
"  of  concord  and  agreement  of  the  aforesaid  noble  princes,  bringing 
"  it  unto  a  most  godly  conclusion.  And  besides  his  great  labour 
"  in  so  necessary  a  cause,  he  preached  in  the  mean  time,  four 
e{  worthy  sermons,  and  two  times  communicated  with  the  Chris- 
"  tian  church  there,  in  the  holy  supper  of  the  Lord ;  and  in  the 
"  latter  communion,  which  was  on  Sunday,  he  ordained  two  mi- 
"  nisters  of  the  word  of  God,  after  the  apostles'  manner."^  This 
great  reformer,  then,  in  the  solemn  anticipation  of  death,  and  when 
he  expected,  in  a  few  days,  to  appear  before  his  eternal  Judge,  still 
claimed  and  exercised  the  right  of  ordaining  ministers,  as  he  had 
done  for  near  thirty  years ;  and  what  is  more,  his  biographers,  who 
were  eminent  divines  of  the  Lutheran  denomination,  and  Luther's 
most  intimate  friends,  declare,  that,  in  their  judgment,  as  well  as 
that  of  their  illustrious  chief,  ordination  by  a  presbyter  was  in  con- 
formity with  "  the  apostles'  manner." 

Nor  did  Luther  stand  alone,  among  the  churches  of  his  denomi- 
nation, in  maintaining  the  primitive  parity  of  Gospel  ministers. 
This  is  evident  from  the  confessions,  and  other  ecclesiastical 

*  Melchoir  Adam,  150. 

f  "  The  true  history  of  the  Christian  departing  of  the  Rev.  Dr.  Martin 
"  Luther ;  collected  by  Justus  Jonas,  Michael  Celius,  and  Joannes 
"  Aurifaber,  which  were  present  thereat." 


372  LETTER  VI. 

documents,  which  were  early  set  forth,  and  which  have  been  ever 
since  received  by  those  churches. 

Among  the  standards  of  the  Lutheran  churches,  the  Augustan 
Confession  holds  the  first  rank.  It  was  drawn  up  by  Melancthon, 
approved  by  Luther,  and  formally  presented  to  the  Emperor 
Charles  V,,  by  those  reformers,  and  their  adherents,  in  the  year 
1530,  as  a  summary  of  the  doctrines  received  by  them.  In  this 
celebrated  Confession  there  is  a  reference  to  a  charge  brought 
against  the  Lutherans  by  the  papists,  that  they  had  abolished  the 
order  of  bishops,  as  a  superior  grade  of  clergy.  The  fact  is  not 
denied,  but  defended  ;  and  that  on  the  ground  that  it  was  neces- 
sary to  obey  God  rather  than  man ;  and  to  be  guided  by  scripture 
rather  than  human  traditions.  It  is  observable,  also,  that  in  this 
Confession,  the  preaching  of  the  gospel,  and  the  administration  of 
the  sacraments,  are  represented  as  the  highest  functions  of  the 
ministry,  and  the  right  to  perform  these  as  including  all  other  minis- 
terial power.* 

The  work  next  in  authority,  as  a  compend  of  Lutheran  doctrine, 
is  the  famous  Defence  of  the  Augustan  Confession,  composed  by 
Melancthon,  in  the  year  1530;  presented  to  the  Emperor  at 
Augsburg,  the  same  year;  acknowledged  as  the  creed  of  the  pro- 
testants  there  assembled  ;  published  in  1531,  and  solemnly  adopt- 
ed as  one  of  the  standards  of  the  Lutheran  church,  by  her  princi- 
pal civil  and  ecclesiastical  guides  of  that  day. — In  the  7th  chapter 
of  this  defence,  the  following  passage  is  found.  Speaking  of 
episcopacy,  they  say,  "  Concerning  this  point,  we  have  often 
"  declared,  in  the  present  convention,  that  we  earnestly  desire  to 
"  retain  the  ecclesiastical  polity,  and  those  grades  which  are 
"  established  in  the  church,  although  brought  in  by  human  autho- 
"  rity.  For  we  know  that  this  form  cf  ecclesiastical  discipline,  as 
"  it  is  described  in  the  ancient  canons,  was  introduced  by  the 
u  fathers  of  the  church  with  good  and  useful  counsel.'' — Here  is  one 
of  the  strongest  testimonies  imaginable  in  favour  of  the  doctrine  of 
primitive  parity.  In  a  Confession  of  Faith,  drawn  up  and  sub- 
scribed by  some  of  the  most  eminently  pious  and  learned  divines 
that  ever  lived,  while  they  express  a  strong  predilection  in  favour 
of  that  episcopal  regimen  which  they  found  in  the  church,  and 

*  See  the  article  on  Ecclesiastical  power  throughout. 


TESTIMONY  OP  THE   REFORMERS.  373 

which  had  been  long  established  ;  they  still  declare,  that  they  con- 
sider it  as  "  brought  in  by  human  authority" — and  as  resting  on 
no  other  ground  than  "  the  good  and  useful  counsel  of  their 
fathers." 

The  work  next  in  authority  in  the  Lutheran  churches,  is  the 
famous  collection  of  articles  drawn  up  and  adopted  at  Smalkald, 
in  1537-  They  were  composed  by  Luther,  subscribed  by  him, 
and  also  by  Melancthon,  Jonas,  JBugenhagius,  Myconius,  and 
many  other  illustrious  Lutheran  divines ;  and  solemnly  acknow- 
ledged, at  a  general  meeting  of  protestants,  in  the  city  whose  name 
they  bear,  as  containing  a  summary  of  their  theological  and  eccle- 
siastical principles.  In  those  articles,  the  following  declarations 
are  found.  "  If  is  eiear,  even  from  the  confession  of  our  adver- 
"  saries,  that  this  power,  (to  wit  of  preaching,  dispensing  the  sacra- 
"  ments,  excommunication,  and  absolution,)  is  common  to  all  that 
"  are  set  over  the  churches,  whether  they  be  called  pastors,  pres- 
"  byters,  or  bishops.  Wherefore  Jerome  plainly  affirms,  that  there  is 
"  no  difference  between  a  bishop  and  a  presbyter  ;  but  that  every 
"  pastor  is  a  bishop.  Here  Jerome  teaches  that  the  distinction  of 
"  degrees  between  a  bishop,  and  a  presbyter  or  pastor,  was  only 
"  appointed  by  human  authority,  and  the  thing  itself  imports  no 
"  less  ;  for  on  both  bishop  and  presbyter  is  laid  the  same  duty,  and 
"  the  same  charge.  Only  ordination  in  AFTER  TIMES  made  the 
"  difference  between  bishop  and  pastor.  By  divine  right  there  is 
"  no  difference  between  them."* 

The  last  public  document  of  the  Lutheran  church,  which  I  shall 
quote,  as  supporting  our  doctrine,  is  a  syllabus  of  controverted 
points,  digested  out  of  the  received  Creeds  and  Confessions  of  that 
church,  and  published  with  those  Creeds  and  Confessions  by  au- 
thority. In  chapter  18.  §4.  of  this  work,  we  find  the  following 
explicit  declaration.  "  Ordination  to  the  work  of  the  ministry  is 
"  necessary  in  a  church  at  liberty  ;  but  this  act  does  not  belong  to 
«  bishops  alone,  nor  can  it  with  propriety  be  called  a  sacrament. 
"  We  hold  this  in  opposition  to  the  papists,  and  also  to  certain 

"  English  Episcopalians,  as  Carleton,  Hall,  and  Bilson,  who  dis- 

• 

•.Articuli  Smakaldid  Christiana  Doctrinae—Scripti  d  D.  Mortino 
Luthero,  Anno  1537— Art.  De  Potestate  et  Jurisdidione  Episcoporum. 


374  LETTER  VI. 

"  tinguish  between  presbyters  and  bishops  as  to  the  point  ofordi- 
"  nation."* 

But  we  may  go  further.  Almost  ALL  the  public  Confessions 
which  were  drawn  up  and  adopted  at  the  aera  of  the  reformation, 
contain  the  same  doctrine,  and  speak  the  same  language.  Mr.  How 
indeed  declares,  that  "  the  universal  language  at  the  time  of  the 
"  reformation,"  was  in  favour  of  the  apostolical  institution  of  pre- 
lacy, and  offering  no  other  plea  but  that  of  necessity  for  establish- 
ing a  different  system  of  ecclesiastical  order.  Dr.  Bowden  makes, 
in  substance,  the  same  assertion.  What  these  gentlemen  will  think 
of  themselves,  and  of  their  representation,  after  perusing  the  follow- 
ing extracts,  is  not  for  me  to  decide. 

In  the  Confession  of  Saxony,  drawn  up  in  1551,  by  Melancthon, 
and  subscribed  by  all  the  Saxon  churches,  the  following  passages 
are  found.  Art.  11.  "  We  do  also  retain  in  our  churches  the 
"  public  rite  of  ordination,  whereby  the  ministry  of  the  gospel  is 
"  commended  to  those  that  are  truly  chosen,  whose  manners  and 
"  doctrine  we  do  first  thoroughly  examine.  These  things  pertain 
"  to  the  ministry, — to  teach  the  gospel;  to  administer  the  sacra- 
"  ments;  to  give  absolution  to  them  that  ask  it,  and  do  not  per- 
"  severe  in  manifest  offences  ;  to  ordain  ministers  of  the  gospel, 
"  being  rightly  called  and  examined  ;  to  exercise  the  judgment  of 
"  the  church  after  a  lawful  manner,  upon  those  who  are  guilty  of 
"manifest  crimes  in  manners  or  in  doctrine;  and  to  pronounce 
Ci  the  sentence  cf  excommunication  against  them  that  are  stubborn, 
"  and  again  to  absolve  and  pardon  them  that  do  repent.  That 
"  these  things  may  be  done  orderly,  there  be  also  consistories  ap- 
"  pointed  in  our  churches."* 

The  Confession  of  Wirtemberg,  drawn  up  in  1552,  by  order  of 
the  duke  of  Wirtenibergy  and  presented  by  his  ambassadors  to  the 
council  of  Trent,  as  a  specimen  of  protestant  doctrine,  contains  the 
following  declarations.  Art.  20.  "  Christ,  in  his  church,  hath 
"  instituted  ministers  who  should  preach  his  gospel,  and  adminis- 
"  ter  the  sacraments.  Neither  is  it  to  be  permitted  to  every  one  to 

*  Appendix  ad  Libras  Ecclesix  Lutherans  Symbolicos,  &?c.  p.  195. 
j-  Harmony  of  Confessions.  Sect  10. 


TESTIMONY  OF  THE  REFORMERS.  375 

«  usurp  a  public  ministry  in  the  church,  without  a  lawful  calling. 
«  Paul  writeth  that  a  bishop  ought  to  be  apt  to  teach  ;  and  Jerome 
"  teacheth  that  a  priest  and  a  bishop  are  all  one.  Therefore  it  is 
"  evident,  that  except  a  priest  be  ordained  in  the  church  to  the 
"  ministry  of  teaching,  he  cannot  rightly  take  unto  him  neither  the 
"  name  of  a  priest,  nor  the  name  of  a'  bishop."* 

The  French  Confession)  formed  in  1559,  and  subscribed  by  all 
the  pastors  of  the  protestant  churches  in  that  kingdom,  contains 
the  following  explicit  declarations.  Art.  29.  "  We  believe  that  this 
"  true  church  ought  to  be  governed  by  that  regiment  or  discipline, 
"  which  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  hath  established,  to  wit,  so  that 
"  there  be  in  it  pastors,  elders,  and  deacons,  that  the  purity  of 
"  doctrine  may  be  retained,  vices  suppressed,  the  poor,  and  others 
"  that  be  in  misery,  according  to  their  necessity,  may  be  provided 
"  for ;  and  that  there  may  be  holy  meetings,  for  the  edifying  both 
"  of  small  and  great."  Art.  30.  "  We  believe  that  all  true  pas- 
"  tors,  in  what  place  soever  they  be  placed,  have  the  same  and 
"  equal  authority  given  unto  them,  under  Jesus  Christ,  the  only 
"  head,  and  the  chief  and  alone  universal  bishop  ;  and  that,  there- 
u  fore,  it  is  not  lawful  for  any  church  to  challenge  unto  itself  do- 
"  minion  or  sovereignty  over  any  other  church."t 

The  Belgic  Confession,  formed  in  1566,  contains  the  following 
explicit  and  decisive  articles.  Art.  30.  "  We  believe,  that  this 
"  church  ought  to  be  ruled  and  governed  by  that  spiritual  regiment, 
«  which  God  himself  hath  delivered  in  his  word,  so  that  there  be 
"  placed  in  it  pastors  and  ministers,  purely  to  preach,  and  rightly 
"  to  administer  the  holy  sacraments — That  there  be  also  in  it  Se- 
"  niors  (or  elders)  and  deacons,  of  whom  the  senate  of  the  church 
"  might  consist,  that,  by  these  means,  true  religion  might  be  pre- 
"  served,  and  sincere  doctrine  in  every  place  retained  and  spread 
"  abroad  5  that  vicious  and  wicked  men  might,  after  a  spiritual 
"  manner,  be  rebuked,  amended,  and  as  it  were  by  the  bridle  of 
"  discipline  kept  within  their  compass;  that  the  poor  in  like  man- 
"  ner,  and  those  that  be  afflicted,  may  be  relieved,  either  with  aid 
"  or  comfort,  according  to  the  several  necessities  of  every  one. 
"  For  then  shall  all  things  in  the  church  be  done  in  due  and  con- 

*  Harm,  of  Confessions,  Sect.  11. 
f  Ibid.  Sect.  11. 


376  LETTER  VI. 

"  venient  order,  when  faithful  and  godly  men  are  chosen  to  have 
"  the  government  of  the  same,  even  as  St.  Paul  hath  prescribed  in 
«  1  Timothy  3,  and  in  Titus  I."  Art.  31.  "We  believe  that 
"  the  ministers,  elders,  and  deacons,  ought  to  be  called  to  those 
<•'  their  functions,  and  by  the  lawful  election  of  the  church  to  be  ad- 
"  vanced  into  those  rooms,*  earnest  prayer  being  made  unto  God, 
tl  and  after  the  order  and  manner  which  is  set  down  unto  us  in  the 
"  word  of  God.  This  especially  every  one  ought  to  take  diligent 
"  heed  of,  that  he  do  not  by  unlawful  means  thrust  himself  into 
"  those  offices.  For  every  one  must  wait  until  he  be  called  of  God 
f<  himself,  that  he  may  have  a  certain  testimony  of  his  vocation, 
"  and  may  know  that  it  is  from  the  Lord.  Yet  in  what  place  of 
6t  the  world  soever  the  ministers  of  the  word  of  God  do  keep,  they 
"  have  all  of  them  the  same  and  equal  power  and  authority  ;  being 
"  all  of  them  equally  the  ministers  of  Christ,  the  only  universal  Bi- 
"  shop  and  Head  of  the  Church."* 

The  second  Helvetic  Confession  was  drawn  up  by  the  pastors 
of  Zurich,  in  the  year  1566,  and  subscribed  not  only  by  themselves, 
but  also  by  the  churches  of  Geneva,  Hungary,  and  Scotland.  In 
the  eighteenth  chapter  of  that  confession,  which  is  entitled,  Of  the 
ministers  of  the  church,  their  institution  and  offices,  are  found 
the  following  declarations — "  The  apostles  of  Christ  do  term  all 
"  those  which  believe  in  Christ,  ^n'este,  but  not  in  regard  of  their 
"  ministry,  but  because  all  the  faithful,  being  made  kings  and 
"priests  by  Christ,  may  offer  up  spiritual  sacrifices  unto  God. 
"  The  ministry,  then,  and  priesthood  are  things  far  different  one 
"  from  the  other.  For  priesthood,  as  we  said  even  now,  is  common 
"  to  all  Christians,  so  is  not  the  ministry.  And  we  have  not  taken 
"  away  the  ministry  from  the  church,  because  we  have  thrust  the 
"  Popish  priesthood  out  of  the  church  of  Christ.  For  surely  in 
"  the  New  Covenant  of  Christ,  there  is  no  longer  any  such 
"  priesthood  as  was  in  the  ancient  church  of  the  Jews,  which 
"  had  an  external  anointing,  holy  garments,  and  very  many  cere- 
"  monies  which  were  Jigures  and  types  of  Christ,  who  by  his 
"  coming,  fulfilled  and  abolished  them.  And  he  himself  remaineth 
"  the  only  priest  for  ever ;  and  we  do  not  communicate  the  name 
"  of  priest  to  any  of  the  ministers,  lest  we  should  detract  any  thing 

*  Harmony  of  Confessions,  Sect  11. 


TESTIMONY  OF  THE  REFORMERS.  377 

"  from  Christ.     Now  the  power  that  is  given  to  the  ministers  of 
"  the  church  is  the  same  and  alike  in  all :  and,  in  the  beginning, 
"  the  bishops  or  elders,  did,  with  a  common  consent  and  labour, 
"  govern  the  church.     No  man  lifted  up  himself  above  another ; 
"  none  usurped  greater  authority  or  power  over  his  fellow  bishops ; 
"  for  they  remembered  the  words  of  the  Lord,  He  which  will  be 
"  the  chief est  among  you  let  him  be  your  servant.     They  kept  in 
"  themselves  by  humility,  and  did  mutually  aid  one  another  in  the 
"  government  and  preservation  of  the  church.     Notwithstanding 
u  for  orders'  sake,  some  one  of  the  ministers  called  the  assembly 
"  together,  propounded  unto  the  assembly  the  matters  to  be  con- 
"  suited  of,  gathered  together  the  voices  or  sentences  of  the  rest, 
"  and,-to  be  brief,  as  much  as  lay  in  him,  provided  that  there  might 
"  arise  no  confusion.     So  did  Saint  Peter,  as  we  read  in  the 
"  Acts  ;  who  yet,  for  all  that,  was  neither  above  the  rest,  nor  had 
"  greater  authority  than  the  rest.     Very  true,  therefore,  is  that 
"  saying  of  Cyprian  the  martyr,  in  his  book  De  Simpl.  Cler. — 
"  The  same  doubtless  were  the  rest  of  the  apostles  that  Peter  was, 
"  having  an  equal  fellowship  with  him  both  in  honour  and  power  ; 
u  but  the  beginning  thereof  proceedeth  from  unity,  to  signify 
"  unto  us  that  there  is  but  one  church.— Saint  Jerome ,  upon  the 
"  epistle  of  Paul  to   Titus,  hath  a  saying  not  much  unlike  this — 
"  Before  that  by  the  instinct  of  the  devil  there  was  partaking  in 
<(  religion,  the  churches  were  governed  by  the  common  advice 
"  of  the  presbyters  ;  but  after  that  every  one  thought,  that  those 
"  whom  he  baptized  were  his  own,  and  not  Christ's,  it  was  decreed 
"  that  one  of  the  presbyters  should  be  chosen  and  set  over  the 
"  rest,  who  should  have  the  care  of  the  whole  church  laid  upon 
"  him,  and  by  whose  means  all  schism  should  be  removed.     Yet 
"  Jerome  doth  not  avouch  this  as  an  order  set  doion  of  God :  for 
"  straightway  after,  he  addeth — Even  as,  saith  he,  the  presbyters 
"  knew  by  the  continual  custom  of  the  church  that  they  were  sub 
"ject   to  him  that  is  set  over  them — so  the  bishops  must  know 
"  that  they  are  above  the.  presbyters,  rather  by  custom,  than  by 
"  the  prescript  rule  of  God's  truth;  and  they  should  have  the 
"  government  of  the  church  in  common  with  them.     Thus  far 
"  Jerome.     Now,  therefore,  no  man  can  forbid  by  any  right,  that 
"  we  may  return  to  the  old  appointment  of  God,  and  rather  receive 
"  that,  than  the  custom  devised  by  men. — Furthermore,  no  man 
3fi 


378  LETTER  VI. 

"  ought  to  usurp  the  honour  of  the  ecclesiastical  ministry,  that  is 
"  to  say,  greedily  to  pluck  it  to  him  by  bribes,  or  any  evil  shifts, 
"  or  of  his  own  accord.  But  let  the  ministers  of  the  church  be 
u  called  and  chosen  by  a  lawful  and  ecclesiastical  election  and 
"  vocation. — And  those  which  are  chosen,  let  them  be  ordained 
"  of  the  elders,  with  public  prayer,  and  laying  on  of  hands.  We 
"  do  condemn  all  those  which  run  of  their  own  accord,  being  nei- 
"  ther  chosen,  sent,  nor  ordained."* 

The  Confession  of  Bohemia,  drawn  up  about  1573,  in  chapter 
9th,  contains  the  following  passage — "  Ministers  ought  not  of  their 
"  own  accord  to  press  forward  in  that  calling  j  but  ought,  accord- 
"  ing  to  the  example  of  the  Lord  and  the  apostles,  to  be  lawfully 
"  appointed  and  ordained  thereunto.  And  again,  these  ought  to 
"  be  proved  and  tried  by  examination,  and  so  afterwards,  prayers 
"  and  fastings  being  made,  they  may  be  confirmed  or  approved  of 
66  the  elders  by  faying  on  of  hands." — Chapter  14.  "  The  power 
"  of  the  keys  is  committed  to  the  church  of  Christ,  and  to  the  minis- 
"  ters  thereof  unto  the  end  of  the  world ;  that  they  should  not 
"  only,  by  preaching,  publish  the  holy  Gospel,  although  they 
66  should  do  this  especially,  that  is,  should  show  forth  that  word  of 
"  true  comfort,  and  the  joyful  message  of  peace,  and  new  tidings 
"  of  that  favour  which  God  offereth ;  but  also  that,  to  the  believing 
"  and  unbelieving,  they  should  publicly  or  privately  denounce  or 
"  make  known,  to  them  his  favour,  to  these  his  wrath,  and  that  to 
"  all  in  general,  or  to  every  one  in  particular,  that  they  may  wisely 
"  receive  some  into  the  house  of  God,  to  the  communion  of  saints, 
u  and  drive  some  out  from  thence,  and  may  so,  through  the  per- 
"  formance  of  their  ministry,  hold  in  their  hand  the  sceptre  of 
u  Christ  bis  kingdom,  and  use  the  same  to  the  government  of 
"  Christ  his  sheep.  And  all  these  things  are  done  by  the  faith- 
"  ful  shepherds  of  souls  in  the  Lord's  stead,  not  doing  this  of  them- 
"  selves,  but  upon  Christ  his  commandment ;  not  by  their  own 
"  and  proper  virtue,  but  by  Christ's,  and  by  the  efficacy  of  his 
"  word  and  sacraments,  as  those  that  are  stewards  and  dispensers 
"  of  the  mysteries  of  God,  and  ministers  only.  In  the  administra- 
"  tion  of  which  things  they  may  use  some  seemly  and  indifferent 
"  ceremonies,  that  is,  which  are  no  way  necessary,  such  as  laying 

*  Harmony  of  Confessions,  Sect.  11. 


TESTIMONY   OF   THE  REFORMERS.  379 

"  on  hands,  or  reaching  out  the  right  hand  5  on  else  they  may  omit 
«  them.— This  power  of  his  sceptre  and  spirit  .hath  the  Lord 
"  granted  and  delivered  to  the  holy  apostles,  and  in  them  to  all 
"  ministers  of  churches  lawfully  ordained,  that  they  might  exercise 
"  in  his  stead  :  and  he  granted  it  to  them  by  these  words,  As  the 
"  Father  hath  sent  me,  so  do  I  send  you  also.  By  this  we  may 
"  understand  that  these  keys,  or  this  divine  function  of  the  Lord's, 
"  is  committed  and  granted  to  those  that  have  the  charge  of  souls, 
u  and  to  each  several  ecclesiastical  society,*  whether  small  or  great. 
"  Moreover,  every  Christian  so  often  as  he  needeth  these  keys  of 
"  the  Lord,  ought  to  require  them  particularly  for  himself  of  the 
u  pastors  of  souls  of  that  church  or  fellowship,  of  which  himself  is 
"  a  part,  and  to  which  he  belongeth ;  and  that  he  use  them  with  full 
"  confidence,  no  otherwise  than  if  he  had  received  them  of  Christ 
"  himself,  seeing  that  Christ  hath  delivered  them  unto  the  pastors. 
"  This  is  also  taught  and  handled,  that  the  priests  ought  not  to  use 
"  these  keys  of  the  Lord,  otherwise  than  according  to  the  meaning 
"  and  will  of  Christ  expressed  in  his  word."f 

From  public  Confessions,  drawn  up  by  the  reformers,  let  us 
descend  to  individual  opinions  expressed  by  those  illustrious  wit- 
nesses for  the  truth,  in  different  countries.  Of  these  the  following 
specimen  will  be  sufficient. 

Ursinus,  a  learned  German  divine,  contemporary  with  Luther 
and  Melancthon,  speaks  the  same  language.  "  Ministers,"  says 
he,  "  are  either  immediately  called  of  God  or  mediately  through 
"  the  instrumentality  of  the  church.  Of  the  former  class,  were 
"  prophets  and  apostles.  Of  the  latter  class  there  are  five  kinds, 
66  viz.  Evangelists,  bishops  or  pastors,  teachers,  ruling  elders,  and 
"  deacons.  Evangelists  are  ministers  appointed  to  go  forth  and 
"  preach  the  Gospel  to  a  number  of  churches.  Bishops  are  minis- 
"  ters  ordained  to  preach  the  word  of  God,  and  administer  the 
"  sacraments,  in  particular  churches.  Teachers  are  ministers  ap- 
"  pointed  merely  to  fulfil  the  function  of  teaching  in  particular 
"  churches.  Ruling  elders  are  ministers  elected  by  the  voice  of 

*  This  is  explained  by  a  note  on  the  article  in  the  following  words — 
«  That  is  to  Presbyteries  or  Consistories,  which  stand  of  pastors  and 
"  elders;  and  unto  whom  properly  the  dispensing  ami  ordering  of  the 
"  keys  and  ecclesiastical  censures  do  belong." 

f  Harmony  of  Confessions,  Sect.  11. 


380 


LETTER  VI. 


"  the  church,  to  assist  in  conducting  discipline,  and  to  order  a 
c*  variety  of  necessary  matters  in  the  church.  Deacons  are  minis- 
"  ters  elected  by  the  church,  to  take  care  of  the  poor,  and  to  dia- 
"  tribute  alms  * 

The  very  learned  Musculus,  also  of  Germany,  a  reformer  con- 
temporary with  Luther,  and  who  embraced  his  principles,  having 
proved  from  Acts  xx.  Philip,  i.  1.  Titus  i.  5.  and  1  Peter  v.  1. 
that,  in  the  apostles'  times  a  bishop  and  presbyter  were  all  one, 
adds  as  follows  :  "  But  after  the  apostles'  times,  when,  amongst 
"  the  elders  of  the  church,  (as  Jerome  saith,)  schisms  arose,  and, 
"  as  I  verily  think;  they  began  to  strive  for  the  pre-eminence  by 
"  little  and  little,  they  began  to  choose  one  out  of  the  number  of  the 
"  elders,  who  was  placed  above  the  rest,  in  a  higher  degree,  and 
"  called  bishop.  But  whether  that  device  of  man  profited  the 
"  church  or  no,  those  who  lived  in  succeeding  times  could  better 
"  judge,  than  when  it  first  began.  If  Jerome  had  seen  as  much  as 
"  those  who  came  after  him,  he  would,  no  doubt,  have  concluded 
"  that  this  was  never  brought  in  to  take  away  schism,  but  was  a 
"project  of  the  devil  to  waste  and  destroy  the  primitive  ministry, 
"  appointed  for  feeding  the  Lord's  flock."  Again,  he  declares, 
"  Whence  it  evidently  appears  that,  in  the  times  of  the  apostles^ 
"  elders,  pasiors,  and  bishops  were  one  and  the  same  in  God's 
"  church." — "  It  is  beyond  all  dispute,  that  the  first  and  apostolic 
"  church,  was,  by  the  apostles,  so  constituted,  that  the  elders  of  the 
"  church  did  exercise  a  common  episcopal  care  over  the  Lord's 
"  flock,  and  enjoyed  the  same  function  of  teaching  and  governing, 
"  and  were  therein  subject  to  no  head  or  president."f 

Zsegedin,  an  eminent  Lutheran  divine  of  Hungary,  contempora- 
ry with  Luther'and  Calvin,  delivers,  in  substance,  the  same  doc- 
trine. The  folio  wing  quotations  are  decisive.  "  May  one  pastor 
«  preside  over  other  pastors  ?  The  practice,  indeed,  hath  obtained 
"  that  presbyters  should  preside,  each  one  in  his  own  college,  and 
"  that  this  person  alone  should  be  called  bishop.  This,  however, 
"  arose  from  human  custom,  and  is  by  no  means  supported  by  the 
"  authority  of  scripture.  And  from  perverting  the  signification 
«  of  a  word  this  evil  hath  arisen,  that,  as  if  all  presbyters  were  not 

*  Ursin.  Corpus.  Doctrinse,  Par.  III.  p.  721. 
f  Loci  Communes  de  Offic.  Minist.  p.  360—362. 


TESTIMONY   OF  THE  REFORMERS.  381 

"  colleagues,  and  called  to  the  same  function,  one,  under  the  pre- 
"  text  of  a  new  title,  arrogated  to  himself  a  dominion  over  others."* 
Again,  "  Hence  learn  that  all  pastors  are  eqvrl  both  in  their 
"  vocation  and  function  ;  and  that  there  is  no  prelatical  tyranny 
"  constituted.  It  is  necessary,  indeed,  that,  among  brethren,  there 
"  should  be  some  one  to  convene  the  college,  to  state  the  business, 
"  and,  when  it  is  necessary,  to  write  and  speak  in  the  name  of  the 
"  college.  But  this  person,  to  avoid  the  odium  of  prelatical  ty- 
"  ranny,  may  be  called  superintendent.  The  power  of  superinten- 
ct  dents  ought  to  be  temporary  and  definite,  not  perpetual."^ 
Again,  "  Is  the  title  of  bishop  common  to  all  ministers  of  the  word  ? 
"  Yes,  certainly.  For  Paul,  in  the  first  chapter  of  the  epistle  to 
"  the  Philippiatis,  represents  many  bishops  as  belonging  to  one 
"  church.  The  titles  bishop,  pastor,  presbyter,  arex  therefore, 
"  synonymous.  Bishop  is  a  term  expressive  of  duty  and  care,  not 
"  of  dignity." — Again,"  The  popish  bishops  are  false  bishops; 
"  not  successors  of  the  apostles,  but  of  Balaam,  cruel,  heretical, 
"  enemies  of  Christ,  who  esteem  the  episcopate  on  account  of  its 
"  introducing  them  to  great  riches.  While  Paul  comprehends 
"  under  the  name  of  bishop,  all  pastors,  the  papists  will  have  it 
"  that  none  is  to  be  held  as  a  bishop  but  the  one  who  is  chosen  by 
u  the  college  to  preside  over  his  brethren. "J 

The  learned  Junius,  an  eminent  Dutch  professor  of  divinity,  who 
lived  at  the  commencement  of  the  reformation  in  Holland,  and 
who  was,  of  course,  nearly  contemporary  with  Luther,^  wrote  very 
fully  and  explicitly  in  support  of  Presbyterian  principles.  In  his 
work  entitled  Ecclesiastici,  he  decidedly,  and  with  great  learning, 
maintains,  that  pastors,  ruling  elders,  and  deacons,  are  the  only 
three  scriptural  orders  of  church  officers  ;  that  pastors,  or  ministers 
of  the  word  and  sacraments,  are  the  highest  order,  and,  of  course, 
are  invested  with  the  power  of  ordaining,  that  the  second  class 
are  men  of  distinguished  piety  and  prudence,  chosen  from  among 

*  Loci  Communes,  p.  197.  Fol.  Quint.  Basil.  1608. 

f  Loci  Communes,  p.  197 

JIbid.  202. 

§  Of  this  illustrious  reformer,  it  is  related,  that  he  preached  in  the 
city  of  Antwerp  at  midnight,  with  no  other  light  than  that  which  was 
produced  by  the  flames  of  burning  martyrs. 


382  LETTER  VI. 

the  members  of  the  church,  to  assist  the  pastor  in  the  government 
of  the  church;  and  that  the  deacons  are  appointed  to  collect  and 
distribute  the  alms  of  the  church.  He  affirms  that  these  three 
orders  are  set  forth  in  scripture,  and  existed  in  the  primitive  church. 
He  declares  that  a  scriptural  bishop  was  the  pastor  of  a  single 
congregation;  and  that  giving  this  title,  by  way  of  eminence,  to 
one  of  the  pastors  in  a  city  or  district,  was  a  practice  introduced 
after  the  time  of  the  apostles,  and  is  to  be  considered  as  a  depar- 
ture from  the  primitive  model.* 

The  same  writer  in  his  Animadversions  on  cardinal  Bellarmine, 
is  still  more  pointed  and  positive  against  the  claims  of  diocesan 
episcopacy,  and  in  favour  of  the  Presbyterian  doctrine  of  parity. — 
It  is  really  amusing  to  trace  the  popish  cardinal  through  all  his 
reasonings  and  cavils,  and  to  observe  what  a  remarkable  coinci- 
dence there  is  between  him  and  Dr.  Bowden  ;  and  it  is  no  less  wor- 
thy of  notice  that  Junius,  though  he  wrote  nearly  two  hundred  and 
fifty  years  ago,  and,  of  course,  many  years  before  the  synod  of 
Dort,  argues  as  uniformly  and  strongly  in  favour  of  Presbyterian 
principles,  as  any  champion  of  presbytery  that  ever  appeared.  I 
cannot  forbear  particularly  to  observe,  that  Bellarmine  turns  in 
every  direction,  and  strains  every  nerve,  to  set  aside  the  testimony 
of  Jerome;  and  for  this  purpose,  in  almost  every  instance,  employs 
exactly  the  same  arguments  and  the  same  subterfuges  with  Dr. 
Bowden :  While  Junius  pronounces  and  proves  his  arguments  to 
be  futile,  and  his  subterfuges  unavailing,  and  the  testimony  of  that 
celebrated  father  to  be  precisely  what  the  friends  of  parity  have 
ever  considered  it.t 

The  learned  Sadeel,  a  French  protestant  divine,  contemporary 
with  Calvin  and  Beza,  has  frequently  been  represented  by  episco- 
pal writers,  as  friendly  to  their  claims,  and  even  as  acknowledging 
the  apostolical  institution  of  episcopacy.  What  the  opinions  of 
this  reformer  really  were,  will  appear  from  the  following  quota- 
tions. In  answer  to  a  learned  popish  doctor,  who,  like  some  of 

*  Ecclesiastici,  sive  de  Nat.  et  Administrat.  Ecclesias,  &?c.  Lib.  n.  Cap, 
2,  3,  4. 

•\Fr.Junii  Jlnimadversiones  inBellarm.  controv.  v.  Lib.  i.  cap.  5,  6,7. 
No  intelligent  reader  will  fail  to  observe  how  almost  universally  reform- 
ers, synods,  confessions,  and  learned  divines  of  every  name  interpret 
Jerome  precisely  as  I  have  done. 


TESTIMONY  OF  THE  REFORMERS.  383 

our  zealous  Episcopalians,  warmly  contended  that  the  power  of 
ordination  was  confined  to  diocesan  bishops,  he  declares,  "  This 
"  Sorbonne  doctor  objects,  that  our  ministers  are  only  presbyters, 
"  and  not  bishops ;  and  therefore  could  not  ordain  other  ministers, 
"  since  only  bishops  have  a  right  to  ordain.  That  this  opinion  is 
"false,  I  shall  immediately  show.  It  is  evident,  from  the  word  of 
"  God,  that  bishop  and  presbyter  are  the  same.  This  appears  from 
"  Titus  i.  5,  from  Actsxx.  and  from  Philip,  i.  1.  But  the  doctor 
"  will  reply,  that  the  names  are  indeed  used  interchangeably  in  the 
"  passages  above  stated ;  but  that  the  offices  themselves  are  care- 
"  fully  distinguished  in  scripture.  But,  I  answer,  when  the  pre&- 
"  byters  are  called  bishops,  the  apostle  is,  in  such  places,  treating 
"  not  of  the  names  and  titles  only,  but  of  the  office  and  function  it- 
"  self.  For  when  he  exhorts  the  presbyters  ofEphesus  to  the  right 
"  exercise  of  their  office,  he  adds  this  reason,  that  the  Holy  Ghost 
"  had  constituted  them  bishops ;  and,  therefore,  he  says,  not  that 
"  they  were  only  called  so ;  but  that  they  were,  in  very  deed,  con- 
"  stituted  such  bishops.  So  that  the  answer  touching  the  confusion 
"  of  names  is  quite  overthrown. — But  the  Sorbonne  doctor  tells  us 
"  that  Paul  enjoins  Timothy  to  lay  hands  suddenly  on  no  man,  and, 
"therefore,  none  but  Timothy  had  the  right  of  ordination.  But 
"  this  conclusion  is  utterly  without  foundation  ;  for  Timothy  is  also 
"  enjoined  to  reject  fables,  and  to  give  attendance  to  reading,  ex- 
"  horlation,  and  doctrine,  &c.  Did  Timothy,  therefore,  arrogatf 
"  all  these  things  to  himself  alone  ?  Did  they  not  belong  to  pres- 
u  byters,  who,  by  Paul's  testimony,  laboured  in  the  word  and  doc- 
"  trine  ?  Timothy's  episcopacy  at  Ephesus  cannot  be  made  good 
"  by  any  testimony  of  Scripture."  Again — "  If  we  allow  to  pres- 
"  byters  the  right  to  preach  the  gospel,  to  administer  baptism,  and 
"  to  celebrate  the  Lord's  supper,  upon  what  imaginable  ground  can 
"  we  deny  them  the  right  to  ordain  ?  Therefore  such  as  exclude 
"  presbyters  from  the  right  to  ordain,  show  themselves  to  be  gross- 
u  ly  ignorant  both  of  the  nature  of  ordination,  and  of  the  pastoral 
"  office."  And  in  support  of  all  this  reasoning,  and  much  more, 
which  I  am  compelled  to  omit,  he  quotes  the  famous  testimony  of 
Jerome,  and  pronounces  it  to  be  conclusive.  He  quotes  also  Ire- 
nceus,  Ambrose,  and  Augustine,  as  giving  testimony  which  coin- 
cides with  that  of  Jerome;  and  adds, "  I  cite  these,  because  the 


384  LETTER  >V1. 

"  papists  esteem  the  authority  of  the  fathers,  more  than  that  of 
"  plain  declarations  of  scripture."* 

But,  in  addition  to  all  this,  there  is  testimony  of  a  different  kind. 
It  not  only  appears,  from  the  public  confessions,  and  individual 
declarations,  which  have  been  quoted,  that  the  apostolical 
institution  of  ministerial  parity  was  believed  by  the  Lutheran 
as  well  as  the  Reformed  churches  ;  but  it  is  evident  that  they 
were  considered  by  others  as  having  avowed  their  belief  in  that 
doctrine. 

The  famous  cardinal  Bellarmine  certainly  understood  the  pro- 
testants  of  his  day  generally  to  hold  the  equality  of  bishops  and 
presbyters  by  divine  right.  "  If,"  saith  he,  "  episcopacy  be  a 
"  sacrament  distinct  from  the  presbyterate,  it  will  be  easy  to  prove 
"  that  a  bishop  is,  both  in  order  and  jurisdiction,  greater  than  a 
"  presbyter,  by  divine  right;  which  NOW,  ALL  THE  HERETICS  (the 
"  protestants}  DENY."!  De  Sacramento  Ordinis,  Cap.  5.  And 
in  his  work,  De  Clericis,  he  makes  a  similar  declaration  in  terms 
equally  express.  For  having  asserted  that  a  bishop  is  superior  to 
a  presbyter,  by  divine  right,  both  with  respect  to  order  and  juris- 
diction, he  ascribes  the  contrary  doctrine  to  Aerius\  to  Wickliffe, 
to  the  Lutherans,  and  the  Calvinists.  Cap.  14. 

Crakenthorp,  a  learned  divine  of  the  church  ojf  England,  con- 
temporary with  Bellarmine,  speaking  of  Luther,  and  the  other 
reformers  on  the  continent  of  Europe,  expresses  himself  in  the 
following  terms.  "  They  have  not,  I  know,  bishops,  distinct  from 
"presbyters,  and  superior  to  them ;  but  at  the  same  time,  they  do 
"  not  teach,  as  Aerius  did,  that  ministerial  imparity  is  contrary  to 
"the  word  of  God.  They  do  not  condemn  it.  They  hold  that, 
"  by  the  word  of  God,  and  divine  right,  either  parity,  or  imparity 

*  Oper.  TheoL  Tom.  i.  Tract.  De  Legitima  Fbcatione  Pastorum  Eccle- 
sso2.  p.  65—67. 

t  Bellyrmine  was  contemporary  with  archbishop  Whitgift.  It  seems 
that,  at  that  time,  the  cardinal  knew  of  no  protestants  who  held  to  the 
divine  right  of  prelacy.  It  is  evident,  therefore,  that  this  doctrine  was 
then  either  wholly  unknown  in  England,  or  maintained  by  so  few,  that 
they  were  not  considered  as  worthy  of  being  recognized  as  an  exception. 


TESTIMONY  OF  THE  REFORMERS.        385 

"  is   lawful,  and  that  every  church  has  authority  or  power  to 
"  admit  either  the  one  or  the  other  as  it  thinks  best."* 

On  these  documents  I  shall  not  trouble  you  with  many  remarks. 
They  speak  a  language  so  uniform,  decided,  and  conclusive,  that  it 
can   neither  be  mistaken  nor  resisted.     And  they  establish,  be- 
yond the  possibility  of  dispute,  that  all  the  leading  reformers  were 
firm  believers  in  the  primitive  parity  of  ministers.     That  this  was 
the  opinion  of  Luther,  Melancthon,^  and  all  the  principal  divines 
of  their  communion,  has  been  abundantly  proved.    That  Calvin 
was  uniformly  of  the  same  opinion,  will  be  demonstrated  in  the  next 
letter.     That  the  Saxon,  Helvetic,  French,  Belgic,  and  Bohemian 
Confessions,  all  declare  in  favour  of  this  doctrine,  as  received  and 
practised  in  the  apostolic  age,  you  have  seen  with  your  own  eyes. 
And,  finally,  that  Cranmerand  his  associates,  who  commenced  the 
reformation  in  England,  did  also,  at  least  at  one  period,  concur  in 
the  same  acknowledgment,  has   been  placed  beyond  all  reasonable 
doubt. 

After  viewing  this  body  of  testimony,  what  must  we  think  of  Mr. 
How's  repeated  declarations,  that  "  the  reformers,  universally 
"  admitted  the  apostolic  claims  of  the  episcopal  constitution  ;"  that 
"  Luther  and  Melancthon  acknowledged  the  obligation  of  episco- 
"  pacy ;  excusing  their  departure  from  it  on  the  ground  of  neces- 
"  sity  ;"  that  "  episcopacy  was  never  ranked,  by  the  reformers, 

*  Defensio  Ecclesiae  Jlnglicanae.  Cap.  42.  Sect.  6. 
f  It  has  been  said  that  Melancthon,  on  a  certain  occasion,  expressed  a 
willingness  to  submit  to  the  power  of  prelates,  provided  they  would  be- 
come patrons  of  the  reformation.  This  is  true.  It  is  also  true,  that  the 
same  pious  and  amiable,  but  too  accommodating1,  Melancthon,  when  he 
subscribed  the  famous  Smalkald  Articles,  annexed  to  his  subscription  a 
declaration,  (which  is  still  to  be  seen,)  that  he  was  willing  to  allow  the 
pope  a  superiority  over  all  other  bishops,  for  the  sake  of  the  peace  of 
the  church  ;  provided  he  would  aid  in  reforming  the  church.  And  it  is 
as  true  as  either,  that  by  these  concessions,  Melancthon  gave  great 
offence  to  the  protestants  of  his  own  communion,  and  complains  in  one 
of  his  letters,  of  the  resentment  which  they  manifested  against  him  on 
this  account.  See  Melancthon's  epistles,  near  the  beginning  of  the 
volume.  Having  mislaid  the  notes  which  I  made,  at  the  time  of  perusing 
the  passage,  I  am  not  able,  at  present,  to  make  a  more  particular 
reference. 

3  C 


386  LETTER  VI. 

"  among  the  corruptions,  or  innovations  of  the  papacy  ;"  that 
"  they  all  recognized  it  as  an  institution  primitive  and  apostolic; 
"  acknowledging  without  reserve,  their  obligation  to  conform  it  ?'* 
And  what  must  we  think  of  Dr.  Bowden,  (from  whom  better  infor- 
mation and  more  caution  might  have  been  expected,)  when  he  fully 
concurs  with  Dr.  Hobart  and  Mr.  How,  in  this  language  of  bold 
and  unqualified  assertion  ?  How  gentlemen  who  have  any  accurate 
knowledge  of  the  rise  and  progress  of  the  reformation;  or  who 
have  attended  to  the  history  and  the  contents  of  public  confessions, 
could  write  thus,  is,  indeed,  unaccountable  !  I  am  lost  in  astonish- 
ment when  I  think  of  the  fact ! 

It  only  remains  that  we  notice,  for  a  moment,  the  assertion  of 
Dr.  Bowden  and  Mr.  How,  that  in  the  Lutheran  churches  of 
Sweden  and  Denmark,  prelacy,  both  mfact  and  name,  is  received. 
If  these  gentlemen  mean,  that  there  are  ministers  in  Sweden  and 
Denmark,  who  bear  the  titles  of  bishop  and  archbishop,  their  as- 
sertion is  undoubtedly  correct ;  and  this  is  no  more  than  T  explicit- 
ly stated  in  my  former  letters.  But  if  they  mean,  that  the  Swedish 
and  Danish  churches  believe  in  the  divine  right  of  prelacy ;  that 
they  consider  episcopal  ordination  as  necessary  to  constitute  the 
Christian  ministry  ;  or  that  they  do,  in  fact,  always  insist  upon 
such  ordination — they  are  unquestionably  in  a  gross  error;  and 
have  given  their  readers  a  most  delusive  view  of  the  subject. 

With  respect  to  Sweden,  it  is  well  known,  that  those  who  plant- 
ed the  reformation,  and  ordained  the  first  protestant  ministers  in 
that  country,  were  mere  presbyters.  And  although,  from  the  in- 
fluence of  habit,  they  chose  to  retain  the  names  and  some  of  the 
functions  of  bishops  and  archbishops;  yet  it  is  equally  certain, 
that  the  first  persons  who  bore  these  titles,  were  set  apart  to  their 
office  by  presbyters ;  and,  of  course,  received  themselves,  and  were 
enabled  to  communicate  to  others,  no  other  than  Presbyterian 
ordination.  As  to  the  point  of  light  in  which  this  subject  is  regard- 
ed by  the  church  of  Sweden,  I  am  happy  in  being  able  to  produce 
the  testimony  of  the  Rev.  Dr.  Collin,  pastor  of  the  Swedish  church 
in  Philadelphia,  a  gentleman  whose  acquaintance  with  the  eccle- 
siastical system  of  his  native  country  cannot  be  doubted;  and 
whose  character  is  a  sufficient  guarantee  for  the  accuracy  of  his 
statements.  He  assures  me,  in  a  letter,  written  at  my  request,  that 
all  the  Swedish  divines,  and  particularly  those  who  themselves 


TESTIMONY  OF  THE  REFORMERS.  387 

enjoy  the  episcopal    dignity,   consider  episcopacy  merely  as    a 
human  regulation ;  that  this  is  the  doctrine  of  all  their  standard 
books ;  that  accordingly,  in  the  absence  of  those  who  are  styled 
bishops,  ordinations  are  performed  by  ordinary  clergymen ;  and 
that  even  bishops  and  archbishops,  may  be  set  apart  to  their  office 
by  presbyters.     In  support  of  these  facts,  Dr.  Collin  produces  the 
most  decisive  testimony  from  Swedish  writers  of  the  highest  autho- 
rity ;  and  declares,  that  there  is  but  one  opinion  among  them  on 
the  subject.     He  adds,"  The  Danes  agree  with  us  in  this  matter. 
"  Vandalin,  Primarius  Professor  of  Theology  in  Copenhagen,  in 
"  a  much  esteemed  work  published  in  the  year  1727,  has  the  fol- 
(<  lowing  passage,  p.   354.     An  jure  divino  Episcopi  a  Presby- 
"  teris  distincti  sunl  ?  Negatur,  contra  Pontifcios  et  quosdam 
"  Anglos"     i.  e.     "  Are  bishops  and  presbyters  distinct  orders 
by  divine  right  ?  We  deny  it;  in  opposition  to  the  papists,  and  to 
certain  persons  of  the  church  of  England."     He  then  goes  on  to 
establish  his  opinion  by  reference  to  a  number  of  passages  of 
scripture,  which  are  precisely  those  which  Presbyterians  usually 
quote. 

The  result  of  all  the  testimony  exhibited  in  the  present  Letter,  is 
this.  That  the  Waldenses,  the  Bohemian  Brethren,  and  all  the 
great  individual  witnesses  for  the  truth,  prior  to  the  time  of  Luther, 
were,  almost  without  exception,  decidedly  anti-prelatical  in  their 
sentiments.  That  at  the  period  of  the  reformation,  the  Presbyterian 
form  of  church  government  was  established  in  all  the  reformed 
churches  in  Germany,  Scotland,  France,  Geneva,  and  Holland; 
and  its  establishment  in  all  these  countries,  accompanied  with 
public  and  solemn  declarations  that  they  considered  this  as  having 
been  the  apostolic  and  primitive  form.  And,  that,  although  in  the 
Lutheran  churches  of  Germany,  Sweden,  Denmark,  and  other 
parts  of  Europe,  some  ministers  were  invested  with  pre-eminent 
powers,  under  different  titles ;  yet  that  they  all,  with  one  voice, 
declared,  that  in  the  apostolic  church,  ministerial  parity  prevailed  ; 
and  acknowledged,  that  the  order  of  Bishops  was  brought  in  by 
human  authority,  and  was  a  regulation  of  expediency  alone.  Such 
was  the  doctrine  maintained  by  those  churches,  at  that  interesting 
period ;  and  the  same  doctrine  has  been  maintained  by  them  uni- 
formly to  the  present  hour. '  It  follows,  then,  agreeably  to  my 
declaration  in  a  former  letter,  that  the  church  of  England  stands 


388  LETTER    VI. 

absolutely  ALONE,  in  the  whole  protestant  world,  in  asserting  the 
divine  institution  of  prelacy  (if  indeed,  she,  as  a  church,  does  assert 
it,  which  many  of  her  own  most  respectable  sons  have  denied)  5 
that  every  other  protestant  church  on  earth  has  formally  disclaimed 
this  doctrine,  and  pronounced  the  distinction  between  bishops  and 
Presbyters  to  be  a  mere  human  invention  ;  and,  consequently, 
that  the  doctrine  of  the  jure  divino  prelatists,  is  so  far  from  being 
the  general  doctrine  of  the  reformed  churches,  that  it  never  has 
been,  and  is  not  now,  received,  by  more  than  a  very  small  portion — 
a  mere  handful  of  the  Protestant  world. 

I  repeat  once  more — the  Bible  is  the  statute  book  of  the  church 
of  Christ ;  and  by  this  book  alone,  must  the  question  before  us  be 
finally  decided.  But,  so  far  as  human  opinion,  fortified  by  all 
the  considerations  of  talents,  learning  and  piety,  is  of  any  value, 
the  doctrine  of  Presbyterian  parity  stands  on  the  most  elevated  and 
triumphant  ground. 


(   389  ) 


LETTER    VII. 


THE  TESTIMONY  OF  CALVIN. 


CHRISTIAN  BRETHREN, 

IT  has  fallen  to  the  lot  of  few  individuals  to  be  more  mistaken 
and  misrepresented  than  the  venerable  Calvin.  His  great  talents, 
his  profound  learning,  his  fervent  piety,  his  stupendous  labours, 
his  astonishing  self-denial,  and  his  sublime  disinterestedness,  have 
all  been  insufficient  to  protect  him  from  the  grossest  abuse.  His 
personal  character,  his  theological  opinions,  and  the  form  of  eccle- 
siastical government  which  he  preferred,  have  each,  in  turn,  been 
the  objects  of  accusation  and  slander.  Had  these  unfair  statements 
been  either  always  the  same,  or  consistent  with  themselves,  it  would 
not  have  been  wonderful  to  find  them  making  some  impression  on 
persons  who  had  no  access  to  sources  of  correct  information.  But 
when  scarcely  any  two  of  these  statements  can  be  reconciled  with 
each  other ;  and  when  the  most  of  them  are  expressly  contradicted  by 
authentic  documents,  it  is  truly  a  matter  of  wonder  that  they  should 
be  favourably  received  by  any  who  have  the  least  claim  to  the 
character  of  learning  or  impartiality.  This  wonder,  however,  exists. 
We  can  hardly  open  a  controversial  work  from  the  pen  of  any 
of  our  episcopal  brethren,  without  finding  more  or  less  obloquy 
directed  against  the  illustrious  Reformer  of  Geneva. 

Dr.  Bowden  and  Mr.  How  have  indulged  themselves  in  this  ob- 
loquy in  a  manner,  and  to  an  extent,  which  appears  to  me  to 
demand  animadversion.  And  as  they  lay  so  much  stress  on  the 
supposed  concessions  of  Calvin  in  favour  of  episcopacy ;  and,  at 


390  LETTER  VII. 

the  same  time,  appear  to  enter  with  such  hearty  good  will  into 
every  attempt,  by  whomsoever  made,  to  load  his  character  with 
reproach,  I  have  resolved  to  devote  the  whole  of  the  present  letter 
to  a  view  of  the  writings,  the  opinions,  and  the  general  character  of 
that  celebrated  man. 

Had  these  gentlemen  been  contented  with  exhibiting  Calvin,  as 
a  man  of  a  "  fierce,'7  "  turbulent,"  and  "  intolerant  spirit  f  had 
they  spoken  only  of  his  "  characteristic  violence,"  of  his  "  playing 
the  tyrant,"  and  of  his  malignaftt  disposition  to  crush  all  who 
opposed  him  ;  to  such  charges  I  snould  have  thought  it  unneces- 
sary to  reply.  To  refute  them,  completely  and  triumphantly,  as 
applicable  in  any  peculiar  or  pre-eminent  degree  to  that  apostolic 
man,  nothing  more  is  requisite  than  a  tolerable  acquaintance  with 
the  history  of  his  life  and  time.  When  so  many  of  the  greatest 
and  best  prelates  that  ever  adorned  the  church  of  England;  men 
really  learned,  and  breathing  in  an  extraordinary  degree  the  spirit 
of  the  Gospel,  have  delighted  to  dwell  on  the  praises  of  Calvin  ; 
when  they  have  almost  exhausted  every  epithet  of  respect  in  eulo- 
gizing his  talents,  his  learning,  his  piety,  his  judgment,  and  the 
usefulness  of  his  labours; — his  memory  surely  needs  no  defence 
against  the  attacks  of  Dr.  Bojoden  and  Mr.  How.  But  when  these 
gentlemen  bring  forward  allegations  and  extracts  which  are  calcu- 
lated to  mislead  even  their  intelligent  readers,  and  to  set  the  decla- 
rations and  the  practice  of  the  pious  reformer  at  variance ;  I  deem 
it  my  duty  to  make  a  few  remarks,  and  to  state  a  few  facts,  in  vin- 
dication of  what  I  consider  as  the  cause  of  primitive  truth  and 
order. 

Dr.  Bowden  and  Mr.  How  represent  Presbyterianism  as  having 
originated  with  Calvin.  Now  it  happens  that  Presbyterianism, 
(to  say  nothing  of  its  apostolic  origin,)  was  introduced  into  Geneva, 
before  Calvin  ever  saw  that  city,  when  he  was  about  nineteen 
years  of  age,  and  while  he  was  yet  in  the  communion  of  the  church 
of  Rome.  The  following  quotation  from  Dr.  Heylin,  a  high-toned 
Episcopalian,  and  a  favourite  authority  of  Dr.  fiowden,  will  be 
considered  by  him  as  decisive.  "  In  this  condition  it  (Geneva) 
"  continued  till  the  year  1528,  when  those  of  Berne,  after  a  public 
"  disputation  held,  had  made  an  alteration  in  religion,  defacing 
«  images,  and  innovating  all  things  in  the  church  on  the  Zuinglian 
"  principles.  Viretus  and  Farellus,  two  men  exceeding  studious 


TESTIMONY  OF  CALVIN.  391 

«  of  the  Reformation,  had  gained  some  footing  in  Geneva,  about 
«  that  time,  and  laboured  with  the  bishop  to  admit  of  such  altera- 
«  tions,  as  had  been  newly  made  in  Berne.  But  when  they  saw  no 
"  hopes  of  prevailing  with  him,  they  practised  on  the  lower  part 
"  of  the  people,  with  whom  they  had  gotten  most  esteem,  and 
"  travelled  so  effectually  with  them  in  it,  that  the  bishop  and  his 
«  clergy,  in  a  popular  tumult,  are  expelled  the  town,  never  to  be 
"  restored  to  their  former  power.  After  which  they  proceeded  to 
"  reform  the  church,  defacing  images,  and  following  in  all  points 
"  the  example  of  Berne,  as  by  Viretus  and  Farellus  they  had  been 
"  instructed ;  whose  doings  in  the  same,  were  afterwards  counte- 
u  nanced  and  approved  by  Calvin,  as  himself  confesseth."* 

The  declaration  of  Calvin  to  which  Heylin  refers,  is  probably 
that  which  he  makes  in  his  famous  letter  to  Cardinal  Sadolet.  In 
the  beginning  of  that  letter,  he  expressly  informs  the  Cardinal,  that 
"  the  religious  system  of  Geneva  had  been  instituted,  and  its  eccle- 
"  siastical  government  reformed,  before  he  was  called  thither.  But 
"  that  what  had  been  done  by  Farel  and  Viret,  he  heartily  ap- 
""  proved,  and  strove,  by  all  the  means  in  his  power,  to  preserve 
61  and  establish. 

Beza  also  informs  us,  and  after  him,  Melchior  Adam,  and  others, 
that  in  the  year  1536,  when  Calvin  stopped  at  Geneva,  on  his  way 
to  Basil,  without  having  the  remotest  thought  of  settling  at  the  for- 
mer place,  Farel  and  Viret,  then  pastors  of  Geneva,  earnestly 
importuned  him  to  remain  in  that  city,  and  to  become  their  asso- 
ciate in  the  ministry;  that  he  still,  however,  declined;  that  it  was 
not  until  Farel  ventured  in  the  name  of  the  Omnipotent  God,  to 
to  denounce  a  curse  against  him,  if  he  should  persist  in  refusing, 
that  he  consented  to  remain  at  Geneva;  and  that  he  at  length  sub- 
mitted himself  to  the  will  of  the  PHESBYTERY,  and  of  the  magis- 
trates, by  whose  suffrages,  the  consent  of  the  people  being  obtained, 
he  was  elected  and  set  apart  as  a 'pastor,  and  also  as  a  public 
teacher  of  divinity,  in  the  month  of  August,  1536.1  From  this  state- 
ment one  fact  is  indubitable,  viz.  that  there  was  a  presbytery  in 
Geneva  before  Calvin  went  thither.  Another  fact  is  equally  clear, 
viz.  that  the  settlement  of  a  minister  was  considered  as  a  proper 

*  Heylin's  Hist,  of  Presbyter,  p.  4—9. 

t  See  Bezel's  Life  of  Calvin,-  and  Melchior  Jldam's  do.  p.  68. 


392  LETTER  VII. 

act  of  the  presbytery.  Nor  will  it  in  the  least  degree  serve  the 
cause  of  my  opponents  to  contend  that  the  ecclesiastical  system  of 
Geneva  was,  afterwards,  new  modelled  and  improved  by  Calvin. 
Be  it  so.  Still  it  is  certain  that  the  leading  principles  of  Presbyte- 
rian polity,  viz.  the  doctrine  of  ministerial  parity ,  and  the  govern- 
ment of  the  church  by  presbyteries,  were  received  and  in  use, 
before  the  public  ministry  of  Calvin  commenced,  or  any  of  his 
writings  had  appeared. 

Dr.  Henry  More,  in  his  Divine  Dialogues,  p.  82.  speaking  of 
the  reformation  of  Geneva,  says, — "As  for  Calvin,  the  charge  of 
"  rebellion  upon  him  is,  that  he  expelled  the  bishop  of  Geneva, 
"  who  was  the  chief  magistrate  of  that  city,  and  changed  the  go- 
"  vernment,  and  so  carried  on  the  reformation.  But  this  is  a  mere 
"  calumny  against  Calvin,  and  without  all  ground;  for  not  so  much 
"  as  that  is  true,  that  Calvin  was  one  of  the  first  planters  of  the 
"  reformation  at  Geneva  ;  and  much  less  that  he,  or  any  other  re- 
"  formers  expelled  the  bishop  out  of  that  city.  It  was  Farel,  Vi- 
"  ret,  and  Froment,  that,  by  their  preaching,  converted  Geneva, 
"  in  the  bishop's  absence,  who  fled  away  eight  months  before,  be- 
"  ing  hated  by  the  citizens  for  the  rape  of  a  virgin,  and  many 
"  adulteries  with  their  wives." 

That  Dr.  JBowden  and  Mr.  How  should  be  unacquainted  with 
all  this,  is  truly  surprising !  I  know,  indeed,  that  it  is  expecting 
too  much  to  suppose  that  these  gentlemen  will  take  the  trouble  to 
investigate  more  than  one  side  of  this  controversy.  But  when 
their  own  favourite  writers  might  have  informed  them  of  all  the 
facts  above  stated,  it  is  rather  singular  that  they  should  have  yet  to 
learn  them. 

Another  allegation  of  these  gentlemen  is,  that  Calvin,  in  the 
early  part  of  his  public  life,  thought  very  favourably  of  diocesan 
episcopacy,  and  even  believed  and  acknowledged  its  apostolic  ori- 
gin. That  afterwards,  when  he  had  undertaken  to  erect  a  church 
on  a  different  model,  and  especially  when  he  had  the  prospect  of 
attaining  great  distinction  in  the  Presbyterian  establishment  of  Ge- 
neva, he  began  to  alter  his  views  and  his  language  ;  but  that,  even 
after  he  had  fairly  embarked  in  support  of  Presbyterian  principles, 
he  rather  defended  himself  by  the  plea  of  necessity  than  divine  au- 
thority. Nay,  Mr.  How  declares,  that  Calvin,  in  rearing  the 
church  of  Geneva,  acknowledged  that  he  was  departing  from  the 


TESTIMONY    OF   CALVIN.  393 

primitive  discipline  ;  that  he  considered  prelacy  as  an  apostolic 
institution  ;  and  that  he  expressed  a  decided  preference  in  favour 
of  this  form  of  government :  But  adds,  "  I  deny  not  that  Calvin 
"  and  Beza  held,  afterwards,  a  language  more  presbyterial.  At 
"  length,  indeed,  schism,  and  the  pride  of  sect,  either  changed  their 
"  sentiments,  or  perverted  their  principles.  In  fact,  the  conduct  of 
"  these  men,  in  relation  to  the  ministry  of  the  Christian  church, 
"  presents  one  of  the  most  melancholy  examples  of  the  prevalence 
"  of  pride  over  virtue,  and  of  the  unhappy  influence  of  schism,  in 
"  blinding  and  infatuating  the  mind,  that  the  history  of  human 
"  frailty  has  ever  recorded."  Letters,  p.  62 — 75.  Dr.  Bowden, 
is  equally  positive  in  asserting,  that  Calvin  believed  and  acknow- 
ledged the  apostolic  origin  of  episcopacy  ;  and  that  he  justified  him- 
self in  departing  from  it  only  on  the  ground  of  necessity.  In  fact, 
by  subscribing  and  referring  to  Dr.  Hobartfs  statement  of  the  case, 
in  his  Apology  for  Apostolic  Order,  p.  91 — 117?  the  reverend 
professor  has  gone  the*whole  length  of  Mr.  How. 

When  I  read  assertions  of  this  kind,  I  cannot  help  recollect- 
ing, in  a  well  known  and  popular  fictitious  history,  a  certain  chap- 
ter which  bears  the  following  title—"  An  humble  attempt  to  prove 
"  that  an  author  will  write  the  better  for  having  some  knowledge 
"  of  the  subject  on  which  he  writes."  If  I  had  the  least  apprehen- 
sion that  these  gentlemen  had  ever  perused  the  works  of  Calvin, 
or  really  knew  what  he  has  left  on  record  upon  this  subject,  such  a 
representation,  so  frequently  and  confidently  made,  would  excite 
feelings  more  unfavourable  than  those  of  astonishment.  But  as  I 
have  no  such  apprehension,  and  feel  perfectly  persuaded  that  the 
perusal  of  a  few  detached  passages,  forms  the  sum  total  of  their 
acquaintance  with  Calvin's  writings,  I  cannot  find  in  my  heart  to 
apply  a  severe  epithet  to  a  misrepresentation  so  total  concerning 
the  history  of  his  language  and  opinions. 

The  truth  is  that  the  earliest  of  Calvin's  writings  contain  some 
of  the  strongest  declarations  in  favour  of  Presbyterian  principles 
that  are  to  be  found  in  all  his  works.  His  Institutions,  his  first 
theological  work,  were  published  in  1536,  before  he  had  ever  seen 
Geneva;  before  he  ever  thought  of  settling  there ;  and  when  he 
was  so  far  from  aspiring  to  pre-eminence  in  any  Presbyterian  es- 
tablishment, that  he  does  not  appear  to  have  had  in  view  the  pas- 
toral office  in  any  church.  Now  it  is  certain  that  this  work  is  as 
3  D 


394  LETTER  VII. 

decisive  on  the  subject  of  presbytery  as  any  that  ever  came  from 
his  pen.  At  that  period,  when  his  mind  appears  to  have  been  as 
dispassionate  and  impartial  as  ever  that  of  a  reformer  was;  when 
he  had  no  visible  temptation  to  deviate  from  the  apostolic  model ; 
and  when  both  habit  and  prejudice  were  leagued  against  presby- 
tery, and  in  favour  of  episcopacy  ;  at  that  period,  and  in  that  work, 
he  decidedly  declared  himself  an  advocate  of  Presbyterian  govern- 
ment, as  the  truly  apostolic  and  primitive  plan.  But  the  follow- 
ing quotations  from  it  will  place  this  fact  in  a  stronger  light,  than 
any  reasonings  or  statements  of  mine. 

Book  iv.  chap.  iii.  In  this  chapter  he  expressly  declares  it  to 
be  his  intention  to  exhibit  "  that  (jrder  by  which  it  was  the  Lord's 
"  will  to  have  his  church  governed." — In  doing  this,  he  unequivo- 
cally delivers  it  as  his  opinion,  that  the  apostolic  model  of  church 
government  was  Presbyterian  ; — that  both  the  office  and  ordina- 
tion of  bishop  and  presbyter  were  the  same ;  that  the  scriptural 
bishop  was  the  pastor  of  a  single  church  5  that  there  were  some- 
times more  bishops  than  one  in  the  primitive  churches,  and  all  on 
a  perfect  equality  ;  and  that  there  were  ruling  elders  and  deacons 
in  those  churches,  exactly  on  the  Presbyterian  plan. 

The  following  extracts,  out  of  many  that  might  be  made,  are 
decisive.  "  Whereas  I  have  indiscriminately  called  those  who 
"  govern  the  churches,  bishops,  presbyters,  and  pastors,  I  have 
"  done  so  according  to  the  usage  of  scripture,  which  indifferently 
"  employs  these  terms  to  designate  the  same  officer  ;  for  whoever 
"  executes  the  office  of  ministers  of  the  gospel,  to  them  the  scrip- 
"  tures  give  the  title  of  bishops.  So  by  Paul,  where  Titus  is  com- 
"  manded  to  ordain  elders  in  every  city,  it  is  immediately  added, 
"for  a  bishop  must  be  blameless,  8fc.  Tit.  i.  5.  So,  in  another 
"  place,  (Philip,  i.  1.)  he  salutes  many  bishops  in  one  church.  And 
"  in  the  Acts  it  is  related  that  he  called  together  the  elders  of  Ephe- 
tl  sus,  whom  he  himself,  in  his  discourse  to  them,  styles  bishops. 
"  Acts  xx.  17.  But  here  it  is  to  be  observed,  that  hitherto  we  have 
"  only  taken  notice  of  those  offices  which  pertain  to  the  ministry 
"  of  the  word  ;  neither  doth  Paul  make  mention  of  any  other  in 
"  the  fourth  chapter  of  the  epistle  to  the  Ephesians,  which  we  be- 
"  fore  cited.  But  in  the  epistle  to  the  Romans  (xii.  7.)  and  in  the 
"  first  epistle  to  the  Corinthians,  (xii.  28.)  he  reckons  up  other 
"  offices,  as  powers,  the  gift  of  healing,  interpretation,  government, 


TESTIMONY  OF  CALVIN.  395 

«  taking  care  of  the  poor.  Of  these,  I  omit  such  as  were  merely 
«  temporary,  because  it  is  not  worth  the  trouble  to  dwell  upon 
«  them.  But  there  are  two  that  are  permanent,  government, 
«  and  the  care  of  the  poor.  Those  who  governed  were,  in  my 
"  opinion,  elders  chosen  out  of  the  laymen  of  each  congregation, 
«  who,  together  with  the  bishops,  bore  rule  in  the  correction  of 
"  morals,  and  in  the  exercise  of  discipline.  For  no  one  can  other- 
"  wise  expound  that  which  the  apostle  saith,  (Rom.  xii.  8.)  He  that 
"  ruleth,  let  him  do  it  with  diligence.  Every  church,  therefore, 
"  from  the  beginning,  had  its  own  senate,  collected  from  among 
"  the  godly,  grave  and  holy,  who  had  that  jurisdiction  over  the 

"  correction  of  vices  of  which  we  shall  speak  hereafter. And, 

u  moreover,  that  this  was  the  order  of  more  than  one  age,  expe- 
"  rience  itself  teaches.  This  office  of  government,  therefore,  is 
"  necessary  for  all  ages." 

"  The  care  of  the  poor  was  committed  to  the  deacons Al- 

"  though  the  word  deacon  has  a  more  extensive  meaning ;  yet 
"  the  Scripture  especially  calls  them  deacons,  to  whom  the  church 
"  hath  given  in  charge  the  distribution  of  alms,  and  the  care  of 
"  the  poor;  and  hath  appointed  them,  as  it  were,  stewards  of 
"  the  common  treasury  of  the  poor — whose  origin,  institution,  and 
"  office  are  described  by  Luke  in  Acts  vi.  For  when  a  murmuring 
"  arose  among  the  Grecians,  because  in  the  ministrations  to  the 
"  poor,  their  widows  were  neglected,  the  apostles,  excusing  them- 
"  selves,  as  not  being  adequate  to  the  execution  of  both  qffices, 
"  both  the  preaching  of  the  word,  and  the  ministering  at  tables, 
"  requested  the  multitude  to  choose  seven  honest  men  to  whom 
"  they  might  commit  that  business.  Behold  what  manner  of  dea- 
"  cons  the  apostolic  church  had ;  and  what  kind  of  deacons  it  be- 
"  cornes  us  to  have  in  conformity  with  their  example  !" 

Book  iv.  Chap.  4th.  Having  treated  of  the  order  of  the  church 
as  "  delivered  in  the  pure  word  of  God,  and  of  the  ministries  as 
instituted  by  Christ,"  he  undertakes,  in  this  chapter,  to  exhibit  the 
order  which  obtained  in  the  "  ancient  church,"  that  is,  as  he 
explains  it,  the  church  as  it  existed  soon  after  the  apostolic  age, 
and  before  the  rise  of  the  papacy.  Now  this  "  ancient  church,"  he 
expressly  declares,  deviated  from  the  pure  apostolic  model ;  bur, 
at  the  same  time,  he  supposes  that  the  deviation  was  not  great  or 
eBsential.  He  proceeds,  "  As  we  have  declared  that  there  are 


396  LETTER  VTI. 

"  three  sorts  of  ministers  commended  to  us  in  the  Scriptures  ;  so 
"  all  the  ministers  that  the  ancient  church  had,  it  divided  into  three 
"  orders.  For  out  of  the  order  of  presbyters,  part  were  chosen 
"pastors  and  teachers,  and  the  rest  bore  rule  in  the  admistration 
"  of  discipline.  To  the  deacons  was  committed  the  care  of  the 
"  poor,  and  the  distribution  of  alms.  All  those  to  whom  the 
"  office  of  teaching  was  committed,  were  called  Presbyters.  They, 
"  in  every  city,  chose  one,  out  of  their  own  number,  to  whom  they, 
"  specially,  gave  the  title  of  bishop ;  that  dissensions  might  not 
"  grow  out  of  equality  as  is  wont  to  be  the  case.  Yet  the  bishop 
"  was  not  so  in  honour  and  dignity  above  the  rest,  as  to  have  any 
"  dominion  over  his  colleagues ;  but  the  office  which  the  consul 
"  had  in  the  senate,  to  propose  business  ;  to  collect  opinions ;  to 
"  preside  in  consulting,  admonishing,  and  exhorting;  to  direct,  by 
"  his  authority,  the  whole  process  of  business;  and  to  put  in  exe- 
"  cution  that  which  was  decreed  by  the  common  counsel  of  all, 
ft  — the  same  office  had  the  bishop  in  the  assembly  of  presbyters. 
"  And  even  this  the  ancient  writers  themselves  confess,  was  brought 
"  in  by  human  consent,  on  account  of  the  necessity  of.  the  times. — 
"  Therefore  Jerome,  in  his  commentary  on  the  epistle  to  Titus, 
"  saith — A  presbuter  was  the  same  with  a  bishop.  And  before 
"  there  were,  by  the  devil's  instigation,  dissensions  in  religion,  and 
"  it  was  said  among  the  people,  I  am  of  Paul,  and  I  of  Cephas, 
"  the  churches  were  governed  by  the  common  council  of  presby- 
"  ters.  Afterwards,  that  the  seeds  of  dissension  might,  be  plucked 
"  up,  all  the  care  was  devolved  on  one  person. — As,  therefore,  the 
"  presbyters  know  that  by  the  custom  of  the  church,  they  are  sub- 
"  ject  to  him  who  presides  among  them  ;  so  let  the  bishops  know, 
"  that  they  are  above  the  presbyters  rather  by  custom,  than  by  any 
"  real  appointment  of  Christ ;  and  that  they  ought  to  govern  the 
"  churches  in  common.  And  in  another  place,  (Epist.  adEvagr.) 
"  he  teaches  how  ancient  an  institution  this  was;  for  he  says, 
"  that  at  Alexandria,  from  Mark,  the  evangelist,  down  to  Hera, 
"  clas  and  Dionysius,  the  presbyters  always  placed  one,  chosen 
"  out  of  their  own  number,  in  a  higher  station,  and  called  him 
u  bishop.  E-very  city,  then,  had  a  college  of  presbyters,  who  were 
"  pastors  and  teachers,  and  who  all  executed  among  the  people 
"  the  offices  of  instructing,  exhorting,  and  exercising  discipline, 
"  which  Paul  enjoins  on  bishops,  Titus  i.  9.  And  every  one  of 


TESTIMONY  OF  CALVIN.  397 

"  these  colleges,  (as  I  said  before,)  was  under  the  presidency  of 
"  one  bishop,  who  was  only  so  far  above  the  rest  in  dignity,  as  to 
"  be  himself  subject  to  the  assembly  of  his  brethren." 

Jn  chapter  llth,  sect.  6,  of  the  same  book,  speaking  of  the  ex- 
ercise of  discipline  in  particular  churches,  he  says — "  But  such 
"  authority  was  not  in  the  power  of  one  man,  to  do  every  thing 
"  according  to  his  own  will;  but  in  the  assembly  of  the  elders, 
"  which  was  the  same  thing  in  the  church  that  a  senate  is  in  a 
"  city.  The  common  and"  usual  manner  was  for  the  authority  of 
"  the  church  to  be  exercised  by  a  senate  of  elders,  of  whom  (as  I 
"  have  before  said,)  there  were  two  sorts,  for  some  were  ordained 
"  to  teach,  and  others  only  to  rule  in  matters  of  discipline.  But 
"  by  little  and  little  this  institution  degenerated  from  its  original 
"  character ;  so  that  even  in  the  time  of  Ambrose,  the  clergy  alone 
"  had  cognizance  of  ecclesiastical  causes,  of  which  he  complains  in 
"these  words — The  ancient  synagogue,"  says  he,  "and  after- 
"  wards  the  church,  had  elders,  withqut  whose  counsel  nothing  was 
"  done." — We  see  how  much  the  holy  man  was  displeased,  that 
"  there  should  be  a  falling  off  in  any  respect,  when  as  yet  things 
"  continued,  to  say  the  least,  in  a  tolerable  condition. — What 
"  would  he  have  said  if  he  had  seen  the  mis-shapen  ruins  which 
"  now  appear,  and  which  exhibit  scarcely  any  vestige  of  the  an- 
"  cient  edifice?  What  lamentation  would  he  have  expressed? 
"  For,  first,  against  law  and  right,  the  bishop  hath  usurped  to 
"  himself  that  authority  which  was  vested  in  the  church.  For  it  is 
"  all  one  as  if  the  consul  had  expelled  the  senate,  and  assumed 
"  the  empire  to  himself  alone.  For  surely,  though  he  is  in  honour 
"  superior  to  the  rest,  yet  there  is  more  authority  in  the  college 
"  than  in  one  man.  It  was,  therefore,  a  very  wicked  deed,  that  one 
"  man,  having  gotten  into  his  own  hands  the  power  which  was 
"  before  common  to  the*Phole  college,  paved  the  way  to  tyranni- 
"  cal  domination,  snatched  from  the  church  her  own  right,  and 
"  abolished  the  presbytery,  which,  by  the  Spirit  of  Christ  had 
"  been  ordained." 

Book  iv.  Chapter  v.  Sect.  i5.  "  Now  let  the  deacons  come 
"  forth,  and  that  holy  distribution  which  they  have  of  the  church's 
"  goods  ;  although  they  by  no  means,  at  present,  create  their 
"  deacons  for  that  purpose.  For  they  (the  papists)  enjoin  upon 
"  them  nothing  else  but  to  minister  at  the  altar,  to  read  or  sing  the 


398  LETTER  VII. 

"  Gospels,  and  to  perform  I  know  not  what  trifles.  Nothing  of  the 
"  alms,  nothing  of  the  care  of  the  poor,  nothing  of  the  whole  func- 
"  tion  which,  informer  times,  they  executed.  I  speak  of  the  very 
"  institution  ;  for  if  we  have  a  respect  to  what  they  do,  it  is  not  in 
"  itself  an  office,  but  only  a  step  toward  the  priesthood.  Therefore 
"they  mock  the  church  with  this  lying  deaconry.  Truly  therein 
"  they  have  nothing  like,  either  the  institution  of  the  apostles,  or 
"  ancient  usage." 

Such  was  the  language  of  Calvin  in  1536,  when  he  was  just  en- 
tering on  his  great  career.  And  this  was  his  uniform  language  to 
the  end  of  his  life.  I  cannot  find  a  single  passage  in  all  his  wri- 
tings in  which  he  speaks  with  greater  severity  of  diocesan  episco- 
pacy, than  in  some  of  the  preceding  extracts.  On  their  import  it 
is  unnecessary  to  enlarge.  They  speak  for  themselves. 

The  following  extracts  from  Calvitfs  commentary,  written  at 
different  periods  of  his  life,  and  under  different  circumstances,  will 
show  that  his  opinion  on  the  subject  in  dispute  was  uniformly  the 
same. 

In  his  commentary  on  Philip,  i.  1.  written  in  the  year  1548, 
we  find  the  following  passage.  "  He  calls  the  pastors,  bishops, 
"  for  the  sake  of  honour.  Moreover  we  infer  from  this  place  that 
u  the  name  of  bishop  is  common  to  all  ministers  of  the  word,  since 
"  the  apostle  assigns  a  plurality  of  bishops  to  a  single  church. 
"  The  names  bishop  and  pastor  are,  therefore,  synonymous. 
"  And  this  passage  is  one  of  those  which  Jerome  cites  to  prove  the 
"  same  thing,  in  his  epistle  to  Evagrius,  and  in  his  exposition  of 
"  the  epistle  to  Titus.  Afterwards  it  became  customary  that  he  who 
"  presided  in  the  bench  of  presbyters  of  a  particular  church,  should 
"  alone  be  called  bishop.  This,  however,  arose  from  human  cus- 
ct  torn,  and  is  by  no  means  supported  by  scripture. — I  confess,  in- 
"  deed,  that  such  are  the  tempers  and  habits  of  men  that  order 
"  cannot  be  maintained  among  ministers  of  the  word,  unless  one 
"  preside.  But  I  speak  of  particular  bodies ;  not  of  whole  pro- 
"  vinces;  and  much  less  of  the  whole  world.  And  although  it  is 
"  not  proper  to  dispute  about  words ;  yet  it  is  better  in  speaking, 
"  to  follow  the  Holy  Spirit,  the  author  of  language,  than  to  change 
"  the  forms  of  expression  established  by  him  for  the  worse. — For 
"  out  of  the  corrupted  signification  of  a  word,  this  evil  arose,  that 


TESTIMONY  OP  CALVIN.  399 

"  thence,  as  if  all  the  presbyters  were  not  colleagues,  and  called  to 
"  the  same  function,  one,  under  the  pretext  of  a  new  title,  arro- 
"  gated  to  himself  a  dominion  over  others." 

In  his  exposition  of  Titus  i.  5.  written  in  1549,  he  thus  writes. 
"  Presbyters  or  elders,  it  is  well  known,  are  not  so  denominated 
"  on  account  of  their  age,  since  young  men  are  sometimes  chosen 
"  to  this  office,  as,  for  instance,  Timothy  ;  but  it  has  always  been 
"  customary,  in  all  languages,  to  apply  this  title,  as  a  term  of  ho- 
"  nour,  to  all  rulers.  And  as  we  gather,  from  the  first  epistle  to 
"  Timothy,  that  there  were  two  kinds  of  elders,  so  here  the  con- 
"  text  shows  that  no  other  that  teaching  elders  are  to  be  under- 
"  stood  ;  that  is,  those  who  were  ordained  to  teach  ;  because  the 
"  same  persons  are  immediately  afterwards  called  bishops. — It 
"  may  be  objected,  that  too  much  power  seems  to  be  given  to  Titus, 
"  when  the  apostle  commands  him  to  appoint  ministers  over  all 
"  the  churches.  This,  it  may  be  said,  is  little  less  than  kingly 
"  power ;  for,  on  this  plan,  the  right  of  choice  is  taken  away  from 
"  the  particular  churches,  and  the  right  of  judging  in  the  case  from 
"  the  college  of  pastors  ;  and  this  would  be  to  profane  the  whole 
"  of  the  sacred  discipline  of  the  church.  But  the  answer  is  easy. 
"  Every  thing  was  not  entrusted  to  the  will  of  Titus  as  an  indivi- 
"  dual,  nor  was  he  allowed  to  impose  such  bishops  on  the  churches 
"  as  he  pleased  ;  but  he  was  commanded  to  preside  in  the  elec- 
"  tions,  as  a  moderator,  as  it  is  necessary  for  some  one  to  do.  This 
"  is  a  mode  of  speaking  exceedingly  common.  Thus  a  consul,  or 
"  regent,  or  dictator  is  said  to  create  consuls,  because  he  convenes 
"  assemblies  for  the  purpose  of  making  choice  of  them.  So  also 
"  Luke  uses  the  same  mode  of  speaking  concerning  Paul  and 
*'  Barnabas,  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  ;  not  that  they  alone, 
"  authoiitatively  appointed  pastors  over  the  churches,  without 
"  their  being  tried  or  approved;  but  they  ordained  suitable  men, 
"  who  had  been  elected,  or  chosen  by  the  people.  We  learn  also, 
"  from  this  place,  that  there  was  not,  then,  such  an  equality  among 
"  the  ministers  of  the  church,  as  was  inconsistent  with  some  one 
"  presiding  in  authority  and  council.*  This,  however,  is  nothing 

•The  original  of  this  sentence  is  as  follows — JXscimus  quidem  ex  hoc 
loce,  non  earn  fuisse  tune  equalitatem  inter  ecdesix  ministros  quin  unu» 
aliquis  anthoritate  et  consilio  praeesset.  Dr.  JSowden  and  Mr,  How  both, 


400  LETTER  VII. 

u  like  the  tyrannical  and  unscriptural  prelacy  which  reigns  in 
"  the  papacy.     The  plan  of  the  apostles  was  extremly  different." 

On  the  7th  verse  of  the  same  chapter,  he  thus  expresses  himself 
— "  Moreover  this  place  abundantly  teaches  us  that  there  is  no 
"  difference  between  presbyters  and  bishops;  because  the  apos- 
u  tie  now  calls  promiscuously  by  the  second  of  these  names,  those 
"  whom  he  had  before  called  presbyters,  and  indeed  the  argument 
"  which  follows,  employs  both  names  indifferently  in  the  same 
"  sense  ;  which  Jerome  hath  observed,  as  well  in  his  commentary 
"  on  this  passage,  as  in  his  epistle  to  Evagrius.  And  hence  we 
"  -fliay  see  how  much  more  has  been  yielded  to  the  opinions  of 
"  men  than  was  decent :  because  the  style  of  the  Holy  Spirit 
"  being  abrogated,  a  custom  introduced  by  the  will  of  man,  pre- 
"  vailed. — I  do  not,  indeed,  disapprove  of  the  opinion,  that,  soon 
"  after  the  commencement  of  the  church,  every  college  of  bishops 
"  had  some  one  to  act  as  moderator.  But  that  a  name  of  office 
u  which  God  had  given  in  common  to  all,  should  be  transferred  to 
"  an  individual  alone,  the  rest  being  robbed  of  it,  was  both 
"  injurious  and  absurd.  Wherefore  so  to  pervert  the  language  of 
"  the  Holy  Spirit,  as  that  the  same  expressions  should  convey  a 
"  meaning  to  us  different  from  that  which  he  intended,  partakes 
"  too  much  of  profane  audacity.9' 

In  his  commentary  on  1  Peter  v.  1.  written  in  1551,  and  de- 
dicated to  Edward  VI.  of  England,  the  following  passage  occurs. 
"  Presbyters.  By  this  title  he  designates  Pastors,  and  whoever 
"  were  appointed  to  the  government  of  the  church.  And  since 
"  Peter  calls  himself  a  presbyter,  like  the  rest,  it  is  hence  apparent 
"  that  this  name  was  common ;  which,  indeed,  from  many  other 

quote  this  sentence/both  undertake  to  translate  it  for  the  benefit  of  their 
readers,  and  both  concur  in  giving  the  following  translation — "  Hence 
"  we  learn  that  there  was  not  any  equality  among  the  ministers  of  the 
"  church,  but  that  one  was  placed  over  the  rest  in  authority  and  coun- 
"  cil."  This  is  one  of  the  principal  quotations  from  Calvin  on  which 
they  found  the  assertion  that  he  believed  in  the  apostolical  origin  of  epis- 
copacy !  Instead  of  saying  what  they  ascribe  to  it,  it  asserts  directly  the 
contrary.  It  declares  that  there  was  an  official  equality  among  the  minis- 
ters of  the  primitive  church  ;  but,  at  the  same  time,  an  equality  by  no 
means  inconsistent  with  one  being  Moderator.  This  is  precisely  the  Pres- 
byterian doctrine  and  practice. 


TESTIMONY  OP  CALVIN.  401 

"  passages  appears  still  more  clearly.  Moreover,  by  this  title  he 
"  claimed  to  himself  authority  ;  as  if  he  had  said,  that  he  admo- 
"  nished  pastprs  in  his  own  right,  because  he  was  one  of  their  num- 
"  ber  ;  for  among  colleagues  there  ought  to  be  this  mutual  privilege. 
"  Whereas  if  he  had  enjoyed  any  pre-eminence  of  authority  among 
"  them,  he  might  have  urged  that,  and  it  would  have  been  more 
"pertinent  to  the  occasion:  But  although  he  was  an  apostle,  yet 
"  he  knew  that  this  gave  him  no  authority  over  his  colleagues ;  but 
"  that  he  was  rather  joined  with  the  rest  in  a  social  office." 

Calvin's  exposition  of  the  first  epistle  to  Timothy  was  written  in 
the  year  1556,  and  dedicated  to  the  Duke  of  Somerset,  Lord  Pro- 
tector of  England.  In  his  remarks  on  the  fifth  chapter  and  seven- 
teenth verse,  of  that  epistle,  he  speaks  thus :  "  From  this  passage 
"  we  may  gather  that  there  were  then  two  kinds  of  presbyters, 
"  because  they  were  not  all  ordained  to  the  work  of  teaching.  For 
u  the  words  plainly  mean,  that  some  ruled  well,  to  whom  no  part 
((  of  the  public  instruction  was  committed..  And  verily  there  were 
"  chosen  from  among  the  people,  grave  and  approved  men,  who, 
"  in  common  council,  and  joint  authority  with  the  pastors,  adminis- 
"  tered  the  discipline  of  the  church,  and  acted  the  part  of  censors 

"  for  the  correction  of  morals. This  practice  Ambrose  complains 

"  had  fallen  into  disuse,  through  the  indolence,  or  rather  the  pride 
«  of  the  teaching  elders,  while  they  wished  to  be  alone  distin- 
"guished." 

I  will  only  add,  that,  in  his  commentary  on  Acts  xx.  28,  written 
in  1560,  a  short  time  before  his  death,  he  expresses  himself  thus  : 
"  Concerning  the  word  Bishop,  it  is  observable,  that  Paul  gives 
(t  this  title  to  all  the  presbyters  of  Ephesus  :  from  which  we  may 
"  infer,  that  according  to  scripture,  presbyters  differed,  in  no  re- 
"  spect,  from  bishops :  but  that  it  arose  from  corruption,  and  a 
te  departure  from  primitive  purity,  that  those  who  held  the  first 
"  seats  in  particular  cities,  began  to  be  called  bishops.  I  say  that 
"  it  arose  from  corruption,  not  that  it  is  an  evil  for  some  one,  in 
"  each  college  of  pastors,  to  be  distinguished  above  the  rest;  but 
"  because  it  is  intolerable  presumption,  that  men,  in  perverting 
"  the  titles  of  scripture  to  their  own  humour,  do  not  hesitate  to 
"  alter  the  meaning  of  the  Holy  Spirit." 

But,  in  spite  of  all  these  repeated  and  positive  declarations  of 
Calvin,  Dr.   Bowden   and  Mr.  How  still  insist,  that  he  acknow- 
3  E 


402  LETTER  VII. 

ledged  the  apostolical  institution  of  prelacy,  and  offered  the  plea  of 
necessity  for  adopting  the  Presbyterian  government  in  Geneva.  To 
prove  this,  they  produce  two  extracts  from  his  writings,  which  have 
really  nothing  to  do  with  the  subject;  but  which,  ever  since  the 
time  of  the  ignorant  or  disingenuous  Durell,  have  been  triumphant- 
ly quoted  by  high  churchmen,  for  a  similar  purpose. 

The  first  of  these  extracts  is  from  Calvin's  famous  letter  to  Car- 
dinal Sadolet,  and  is  in  the  following  words.  "  We  do  not  deny 
"  that  we  want  a  discipline  such  as  the  ancient  church  (Vetus  Ec- 
"  clesid)  had.  But  with  what  justice  can  we  be  accused  of  sub- 
"  verting  discipline,  by  those  very  men  (the  papists)  who  alone 
(i  have  entirely  destroyed  it ;  and  who,  when  we  endeavoured  to 
"  restore  it,  have  hitherto  prevented  us  ?  But  with  respect  to  doc- 
61  trine,  we  are  willing  to  be  compared  with  the  ancient  church."* 

How  far  this  extract  really  goes  towards  proving  the  point  in- 
tended to  be  established  by  it,  will  appear  from  the  following  analysis 
of  the  letter.  Calvin,  in  his  reply  to  Sadolet,  pursues  the  method 
which  the  cardinal  had  adopted  in  arranging  his  charges  against 
the  Church  of  Geneva.  He  firmly  defends  his  own  ministry,  which 
we  all  know  was  Presbyterian,  and  which  his  antagonist  had  re- 
presented as  invalid.  He  warmly  refutes  the  charge  of  ambition, 
and  pecuniary  influence,  alleged  against  the  reforming  ministers. 
After  defining  what  he  means  by  a  church  ;  and  after  repelling  the 
charge,  that  he  had  left  the  church,  by  showing  that  he  had  only 
reformed  it ;  he  invites  Sadolet  to  compare  their  respective  churches 
with  the  ancient  church.  The  cardinal  could  not,  consistently 
with  popish  pretensions,  submit  to  be  tried  by  the  state  of  the  church 
as  described  in  the  New  Testament.  Calvin,  therefore,  although 
he  considered  the  apostolic  church  as  the  only  proper  model,  waives 
his  right,  for  the  sake  of  argument,  and  challenges  the  cardinal  to 
compare  with  antiquity.  "  Not,"  says  he  expressly,  "  not  with 
that  form  which  the  apostles  appointed,  which  is  the  only  model  of 
a  true  church  ;"  but  even  with  the  "  ancient  church,"  as  it  stood 
in  the  days  of  Chrysostom  and  Basil,  among  the  Greeks  ;  and  of 
Cyprian,  Ambrose,  fyc.  among  the  Latins  :  which  "  ancient  church" 
he  justly  asserts,  differed  as  much  from  the  Church  of  Rome,  at  the 
time  of  his  writing,  as  did  the  reign  of  David  from  that  of  Zede~ 

*  Jld  Sadoktum  Respomio  CALVINI.    Tradatus  Theohgici.  p.  125. 


TESTIMONY  OF  CALVIN.  403 

kiah.  In  order  to  make  an  impression  on  popish  minds,  Calvin 
judged  it  more  suitable  to  show  the  defection  of  their  church  from 
what  they  themselves  called  the  standard,  than  their  inconsistency 
with  apostolic  order,  about  which  they  had  less  concern. 

Calvin  maintains  in  this  letter,  that  the  sacraments  and  the  doc- 
trine of  the  "  ancient  church,"  corresponded  much  more  nearly 
with  the  Reformed  than  with  the  Popish  Church.  He  readily  con- 
fesses that  the  discipline  of  the  reformed,  differs  from  that  of  the 
"  ancient  church."  But  he  alleges,  at  the  same  time,  that  this  con- 
cession cannot  avail  the'  cardinal,  whose  church  differs  still  more 
from  that  discipline.  And  he  also  alleges,  that,  amidst  all  the  op- 
position and  difficulties  with  which  they  had  to  struggle,  in  the  re- 
storation of  strict  discipline,  they  were  still  going  on  ;  that  they  had 
already  approached  nearer  to  the  "  ancient  church"  than  their  po- 
pish neighbours ;  and,  by  perseverance,  were  likely  soon  even  to 
surpass  that  model.  Now,  all  this  reasoning  would  have  been 
very  preposterous,  if  Calvin  had  been  here  speaking  of  prelacy. 
For  how  could  the  church  of  Geneva,  which  was  Presbyterian  in 
its  form,  be  nearer,  on  prelatical  principles,  to  the  "  ancient 
church,"  than  that  of  Rome  was,  which  embraced  prelacy  ?  And, 
above  all,  how  could  Calvin  say  that  the  Church  of  Geneva  was 
still  approaching  nearer  to  the  "  ancient  church"  in  discipline,  and 
was  likely  to  surpass  it  ?  Was  the  church  of  Geneva  then  grow- 
ing more  prelatical  ?  No  one  ever  supposed  it.  The  truth  is,  by 
discipline,  Calvin  and  Sadolet  both  mean  the  system  of  rules  for 
directing  the  whole  Christian  conduct  both  of  ministers  and  people. 
There  is  nothing  in  this  part  of  the  argument  that  has  the  least 
reference  to  different  orders  in  the  ministry. 

It  turns  out,  then,  that  this  famous  extract  from  the  letter  to 
Sadolet  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  question  in  dispute ;  that  the 
tenor  of  the  letter,  so  far  as  it  bears  on  prelacy,  is  directly  opposed 
to  it ;  that  the  Vetus  Ecclesia,  the  "  ancient  church,"  intended 
by  Calvin,  is  not,  as  he  himself  expressly  declares,  the  church  as 
it  was  left  by  the  apostles,  but  as  it  stood  in  the  third  and  fourth 
centuries  ;  that  the  discipline  of  which  he  speaks,  has  no  reference 
to  orders  in  the  Christian  ministry ;  and,  of  course,  that  the  boast- 
ed passage  in  question  could  never  have  been  quoted  as  affording 
the  least  hint  in  favour  of  prelacy,  excepting  by  those  who  had 
never  read  the  whole  letter,  or  grossly  perverted  its  evident  mean- 


404  LETTER  V1J. 

ing.  With  the  latter,  I  do  not  charge  Dr.  JBowden  or  Mr.  How. 
I  take  for  granted  they  have  never  read  a  sentence  of  the  letter,  ex- 
cepting the  detached  passage  under  consideration.  They  have 
been  led  astray  by  others,  probably  as  little  acquainted  with  it  as 
themselves. 

The  other  passage  which  Mr.  How  quotes  as  positive  proof  that 
Calvin  believed  in  the  divine  institution  of  prelacy,  is  taken  from 
his  Tract  De  Necessitate  Reformandce  Ecclesice,  as  follows.  "  If 
"  they  (the  Papists)  would  exhibit  to  us  an  hierarchy,  in  which  the 
"  bishops  should  be  so  distinguished,  as  not  to  refuse  subjection  to 
"  Christ ;  then  I  will  confess  that  they  are  worthy  of  all  anathemas, 
"  if  any  such  there  be,  who  would  not  reverence  it,  and  submit 
"  themselves  to  it  with  the  utmost  obedience."* 

This  passage,  when  impartially  examined,  will  be  found  as  little 
to  the  purpose  as  the  former.  It  is  only  saying,  that  Calvin  stood 
ready  to  approve  of  a  scriptural  and  primitive  episcopacy,  when- 
ever it  should  be  introduced.  And  would  not  all  Presbyterians, 
as  well  as  Calvin,  say  the  same  thing  ?  Nay,  blessed  be  God  ! 
we  can  go  further.  It  is  the  happiness  of  our  church  that  we 
HAVE  SUCH  AN  EPISCOPACY,  and  we  glory  in  having  it.  Calvin 
never  denied  that  there  were  bishops  in  the  days  of  the  apostles. 
No  Presbyterian  ever  denied  it.  It  is  for  such  an  episcopacy  as 
was  established  by  inspired  men  in  Jerusalem,  Ephesus,  Antioch, 
and  Philippi,  that  we  contend;  and  the  venerable  reformer  of 
Geneva  meant  no  other. 

It  has  been  said  that  Calvin's  employing  the  word  hierarchy 
(liierarchiam)  in  this  passage,  proves  that  he  referred  with  appro- 
bation to  an  ecclesiastical  constitution  embracing  different  orders 
of  clergy.  It  has  been  even  asserted,  that  this  word  is  exclusively 
appropriated  to  government  by  prelates;  and  that  no  instance 
can  be  found  of  its  application  to  any  other  kind  of  ecclesiastical 
regimen.  This  is  a  total  mistake.  The  word  hierarchy  simply 
implies  sacred  or  ecclesiastical  government.  It  may  be  applied 
with  as  much  propriety  to  Presbyterianism  or  Independency,  as  to 
diocesan  episcopacy.  It  has  been  often  so  applied  by  the  best 
writers.  But,  what  settles  the  matter  is,  that  Calvin  himself  so 
applies  it.  In  his  Institutions,  Lib.  iv.  Cap.  5.  he  speaks  of"  that 

*  J.  Calvini  Tractatus  Theologici,  p.  69. 


I 

TESTIMONY  OF  CALVIN.  405 

hierarchy  or  spiritual  government,"  which  was  left  in  the  church 
by  the  apostles,  and  which  he  expressly  declares,  in  the  same 
chapter  to  have  been  Presbyterian  in  its  form.  Many  other  in- 
stances might  be  produced  in  which  this  Reformer  has  used  the 
same  word  in  a  similar  sense.  When  gentlemen  undertake  to  inter- 
pret Calvin,  and  especially  to  speak  with  so  much  positiveness 
of  his  meaning,  they  ought  to  have  some  acquaintance  with  his 
writings. 

Where  now,  let  me  ask,  is  the  proof  of  which  my  opponents 
speak  so  much,  and  so  confidently,  that  Calvin  believed  in  the 
divine  institution  of  prelacy ;  that  he  lamented  the  want  of  it  in 
Geneva;  and  that  he  justified  himself  by  the  plea  of  necessity,  in 
establishing  Presbyterian  government  in  that  Church  ?  It  is  not 
to  be  found.  No  such  proof  exists.  They  have  not  produced  a 
syllable  which  looks  like  it.  Nor  do  I  believe  that  they  can  pro- 
duce a  solitary  scrap,  from  aH  his  voluminous  writings,  nor  any 
well  attested  declaration,*  made  at  any  period  of  his  public  life, 
which  .will  bear  such  a  construction. 

The  truth  is,  Calvin  never  pretended  any  such  necessity.  On 
the  contrary,  he  steadfastly  represented  the  Genevan  form  of 
government  and  discipline,  as  strictly  agreeable  to  the  word  of 
God,  and  as  that  which  he  felt  himself  bound,  by  obedience  to 
Christ,  to  establish  and  defend.  "  Besides,"  says  he,  "  that  our 
"  conscience  acquits  us  in  the  sight  of  God,  the  thing  itself  will 
"  answer  for  us  in  the  sight  of  men.  •  Nobody  has  yet  appeared 
"  that  could  prove  that  we  had  altered  any  one  thing,  which  God  has 
"  commanded  ;  or  that  we  have  appointed  any  new  thing  contrary 
"  to  his  word ;  or  that  we  have  turned  aside  from  the  truth,  to 


*  I  say  well  attested,  because  the  story  which  Dr.  Bowden  gravely  re- 
peats of  Calvin,  Bullinger,  6?c.  having  written  to  Edward  VI.  in  1549, 
"  offering  to  make  him  their  defender,  and  to  have  bishops  in  their 
churches,  for  better  unity  and  concord,"  is  not  so  attested.  I  think  no 
impartial  reader  can  peruse  the  account,  as  given  by  Strype,  without 
suspecting  the  whole  to  be  a  fable.  Let  us  see  the  letter;  and  we  will 
answer  to  the  charge.  But  even  admitting  this  to  be  true,  to  what  does 
it  amount  ?  Why,  that  Calvin,  in  an  evil  hour,  made  a  concession  with 
respect  to  prelates,  similar  to  that  which  Melancthon  had  made  before 
him,  with  respect  to  the  Pope ;  and  that  in  direct  opposition  to  all  his 
solemnly  declared  principles,  and  uniform  practice. 


406  LETTER  VII. 

«  follow  any  evil  opinion.  On  the  contrary,  it  is  manifest  that  we 
"  have  reformed  our  church  MERELY  BY  GOD'S  WORD,  which  is 
"  the  only  rule  by  which  it  is  to  be  ordered  and  lawfully  defended. 
"  It  is,  indeed,  an  unpleasant  work  to  alter  what  has  been  formerly 
"  in  use,  were  it  not  that  the  order  which  God  has  once  fixed, 
et  must  be  esteemed  by  us  as  sacred  and  inviolable  ;  insomuch  that 
"  if  it  has,  for  a  time,  been  laid  aside,  it  must  of  necessity,  (and 
"  whatever  the  consequences  should  prove,)  be  restored  again. 
"  No  antiquity,  no  prescription  of  custom,  may  be  allowed  to  be 
"  an  obstacle  in  this  case,  that  the  government  of  the  church 
"  which.  God  has  appointed,  should  not  be  perpetual,  since  the 
<l  Lord  himself  has  oncejixed  it."* 

So  much  for  the  opinion  of  Calvin  on  the  subject  of  episcopacy. 
I  shall  now  proceed  to  take  notice  of  some  other  allegations 
which  Dr.  Bowden  has  made  concerning  this  great  man,  and  which 
are  as  destitute  of  foundation  as  those  which  have  been  already 
refuted. 

Doctor  Bowden  asserts,  on  the  authority  of  Dr.  Learning,  that 
Calvin  never  was  ordained;  and  represents  that  gentleman  as 
having  derived  his  information  from  Beza.  The  doctor  has  suf- 
fered himself  to  be  led  astray,  by  an  ignorant  or  dishonest  guide. 
Beza  says  no  such  thing.  On  the  contrary,  after  informing  us  that 
Calvin  had  frequently  preached  while  he  was  yet  a  youth,  in  the 
communion  of  the  church  of  Rome,  and  that  he  did  this  without 
having  received  any  Popish  orders  ;  Beza  proceeds  to  state  that 
he  was  set  apart  (designatus)  to  the  ministry  by  the  presbytery  of 
Getieva,  in  the  month  of  August  in  the  year  1536.t  Besides,  even 
if  there  were  no  record  establishing  the  time  and  place  of  his  ordi- 
nation, we  might  fairly  presume  that  such  a  solemnity  had  taken 
place,  because  it  was  the  general  sentiment  of  the  reformers  that 
ordination  by  the  imposition  of  hands  is  both  scriptural  and  neces- 
sary 5  because  this  mode  of  constituting  the  ministry  is  well  known 
to  have  been  the  habit  of  the  times;  because  Calvin  in  his  Insti- 
tutions, published  only  a  few  weeks  before  he  went  to  Geneva, 
expressly  enjoins  ordination  in  this  manner ;  and  because  in  the 

*  Epist.  ad  quendam  Curatum,-  in  Calvin.  Epist.  p,  386. 
f  See  Beza's  Life  of  Calvin. 


TESTIMONY  OF  CALVIN.  407 

confession  of  the  French  churches,  which  he  drew  up  a  sh6rt  time 
afterwards,  such  ordination  is  declared  to  be  essential  to  a  regular 
ministry.  Now  is  it  credible,  that  Calvin,  when  it  was  perfectly 
within  his  reach,  would  have  suffered  himself,  under  all  the  cir- 
cumstances which  have  been  mentioned,  to  be  without  that  seal  of 
office,  which  habit  and  public  opinion  imperiously  demanded,  and 
which  both  before  and  after,  he  himself  represented  as  so  highly 
important  ?  It  is  not  credible.  We  should  be  bound,  on  every 
principle  of  probability,  to  take  for  granted  that  he  was  regularly 
ordained,  even  if  no  hint  had  ever  been  given  on  the  subject  by  a 
single  writer. 

But  we  have  other  evidence  that  Calvin  was  regularly  ordained- 
Junius,  the  learned  professor  of  divinity  in  the  University  of 
Ley  den,  before  mentioned,  who  was  a  contemporary  with  Calvin, 
explicitly  states  the  fact  Bellarmine  had  asserted  that,  before  Gal- 
^vin,  presbyters  had  not  undertaken  to  ordain.  Junius  contradicts 
him ;  asserts  that  the  reformers  who  preceded  Calvin,  held  and  prac- 
tised Presbyterian  ordination  ;  and  declares  that  by  some  of  these, 
"  his  predecessors,  Calvin  was  himself  ordained."*  And  Cardi- 
nal Bellarmine,  speaking  of  the  validity  of  ordinations  as  perform- 
ed in  the  protestant  churches,  says,  "  Neither  Luther,  nor  Zuin- 
gle,  nor  Calvin  were  bishops,  but  only  presbyters.77  Neque  Luther- 
us,  neque  Zuinglius,  neque  Calvinus  episcopifuerunt,  sed  tantum 
presbyteri.f  Neither  the  learning  nor  the  talents  of  this  cele- 
brated papist  will  be  denied.  He  lived  at  the  same  time  with  Calvin9 
and  must  have  known  his  history  5  and  he  had  as  strong  tempta- 
tion, as  Dr.  Bowden  can  have,  to  degrade  both  the  personal  and 
ecclesiastical  character  of  that  reformer  ;  yet  he  explicitly  concedes 
that  he  was  reputed  a  presbyter. 

But  supposing  the  fact  established  that  he  never  was  ordained, 
either  in  the  Presbyterian,  the  Episcopal,  or  any  other  mode. 
What  then  ?  It  has  no  more  to  do  with  the  argument  in  question 
than  with  the  remotest  speculation  in  mathematical  or  physical 
science.  Has  Calvin  been  the  ordainer  of  all  Presbyterian  minis- 
ters since  he  entered  the  church  ?  Did  he  ever  undertake,  alone,  to 
ordain  even  a  single  minister  ?  It  is  one  of  the  numerous  advan- 

*  Fr.   Junii  JLnimadversiones  in  Bellarm.  Controv.  v.  Lib.  i.  Cap.  3. 
19. 
f  Sellarmin.  Controv.  v.  Lib.  Cap.    3. 


408  LETTER  VII. 

tagesof  Presbyterianism  that  it  affords  much  greater  security  against 
spurious  ordinations,  than  episcopacy.  It  vests  the  power  of  or- 
daining, not  in  a  single  man,  but  in  a  presbytery  ;  so  that  a  case 
can  never  occur,  among  us,  in  which  a  defect  of  ecclesiastical 
character  in  an  individual,  can  vitiate  an  ordination. 

But  Dr.  Bowden  not  only  denies  that  there  is  any  evidence  that 
Calvin  was  ever  ordained ;  he  even  goes  so  far  as  to  express  a 
very  serious  doubt  whether  the  reformers  ever  considered  him  in 
the  light  of  a  minister  at  all.  Instead  of  taking  up  your  time  to 
express  my  surprise  at  a  suggestion  so  extraordinary,  I  shall  con- 
tent myself  with  presenting  two  or  three  testimonies,  which  will 
show  how  Calvin  was  viewed  by  contemporary  English  divines. 

The  celebrated  martyr,  Philpot,  a  very  eminent  divine  of  the 
Church  of  England,  who'suffered  for  the  truth  in  the  reign  of  Queen 
Mary,  said  to  his  popish  judges — "  Which  of  you  is  able  to  an- 
"  swer  Calvin's  Institutions,  who  is  minister  of  Geneva  ?  I  am 
"  sure  you  blaspheme  that  godly  man,  and  that  godly  churchy 
"  where  he  is  minister,  as  it  is  your  church's  condition,  when  you 
"  cannot  answer  men  by  learning,  to  oppress  them,  with  blasphe- 
"  mies  and  false  reports.  For  in  the  matter  of  predestination,  he 
"  (Calvin)  is  in  no  other  opinion  than  all  the  doctors  of  the  church 
"  be,  agreeing  with  the  scriptures."  On  a  subsequent  examina- 
tion he  declared  — "  I  allow  the  Church  of  Geneva,  and  the  doc- 
u  trine  of  the  same  ;  for  it  is  una,  catholica,  et  apostolica,  and 
"  doth  follow  the  doctrines  which  the  apostles  did  preach  ;  and 
"  the  doctrine  taught  and  preached  in  King  Edward's  days  was 
"  also  according  to  the  same."* 

Bishop  Jewel's  opinion  of  Calvin  and  of  Calvinism  will  appear 
from  the  following  declarations.  His  antagonist  Harding,  a  viru- 
lent papist,  is  continually  reviling  the  bishop  as  a  disciple  of  Cal- 
vin, and  the  English  Protestants  as  Calvinists.  The  bishop  never 
disavows  the  charge,  and  repeatedly  defends  Calvin  in  terms  of 
high  respect.  "  Touching  Mr.  Calvin,"  says  he,  "  it  is  a  great 
"  wrong  untruly  to  report  so  reverend  a  father,  and  so  worthy  an 
u  ornament  of  the  church  of  God.  If  you  had  ever  known  the  or- 
"  der  of  the  Church  at  Geneva,  and  had  seen  four  thousand  peo- 
"  pie  or  more  receiving  the  holy  mysteries  together  at  one  coramu- 

*  Book  of  Martyrs,  Vol.  HI.  Philpot's  Examinations. 


TESTIMONY  OP  CALVIN.  409 

«  nion,  you  could  not,  without  great  shame  and  want  of  modesty, 
"  thus  untruly  have  published  to  the  world  that,  by  Mr.  Calvin's 
"  doctrine,  the  sacraments  of  Christ  are  superfluous.'7* 

Bishop  Hooper,  when  he  was  imprisoned  for  his  adherence  to 
the  truth,  in  the  reign  of  Queen  Mary,  wrote  in  the  most  friendly 
and  affectionate  manner  to  Calvin,  addressing  him  in  terms  of  pro- 
found respect  for  his  ecclesiastical,  as  well  as  his  personal  charac- 
ter, and  begging  his,  and  his  church's  prayers. 

Bishop  Hall,  though  not  a  contemporary  of  Calvin,  yet  lived  so 
near  his  time,  as  to  be  perfectly  acquainted  with  the  light  in  which 
he  was  viewed  by  the  English  reformers.  Speaking  of  him,  he 
says,  "  That  the  Latin  or  Western  church,  subject  to  the  Romish 
"  tyranny  (unto  the  very  times  of  Luther)  was  a  true  church,  in 
"  which  a  saving  profession  of  the  truth  of  Christ  was  found,  our 
"  learned  Dr.  Field  hath  saved  me  the  labour  to  prpve,  by  the 
"  suffrages  of  our  best  and  most  renowned  DIVINES,  among  whom 
"  he  cites  Calvin,  Bucer,  Melancthon,  Beza,  &c."  Here  Bishop 
Hall  not  only  acknowledges  the  illustrious  reformer  of  Geneva,  as 
one  of  the  best  and  most  renowned  of  divines ;  but  even  places 
him  at  the  head  of  the  list ! 

Dr.  Bowden  asserts,  that  soon  after  the  reformation  commenced 
in  England,  Calvin  made  an  officious  offer  of  his  services,  to  aid 
the  cause  in  that  country ;  that  the  English  reformers,  knowing 
his  "  arrogant"  and  "  tyrannical"  spirit,  "  civilly  rejected  his 
offer ;"  and  that  this  "  displeased  him  to  such  a  degree,  that 
11  although  he  had  before  spoken  handsome  things  of  the  church  of 
"  England,  yet  from  that  time  he  began  to  say  harsh  things  of 
"  her."  Here  again,  I  am  compelled  to  say,  Dr.  Bowden  shows 
himself  to  be  entirely  unacquainted  with  facts  5  and  with  facts  too, 
which  he  might  have  learned  from  his  own  historians. 

The  truth  is,  the  services  of  Calvin  in  the  cause  of  the  reforma- 
tion, instead  of  being  obtrusively  and  officiously  offered  by  him, 
were  expressly  and  warmly  solicited  by  Archbishop  Cranmer. 
This  is  attested  so  decidedly  by  the  most  impartial  historians,  that 
the  only  wonder  is,  how  a  gentleman  of  Dr.  Bowderfs  character, 
could  stoop  to  be  the  retailer  of  so  stale  a  calumny  as  the  opposite 
story  unquestionably  is.  In  the  reign  of  Edward  VI.  as  Strype 

*  Jewel's  Defence  of  his  Apology,  part  n.  p.  188. 
3  F 


410  LETTER  VII. 

tells  us,  Archbishop  Cranmer  having  formed  a  plan  of  drawing  up 
a  book  of  articles,  which  should  comprehend  every  thing  essen- 
tial relating  to  faith  and,  practice,  and  in  which  all  protestants 
might  unite ;  sent  letters  to  Calvin,  Bullinger,  and  Melancthon, 
disclosing  his  pious  design,  and  requesting  "  their  counsel  and 
furtherance."  Calvin  wrote  repeatedly  and  freely  to  the  Arch- 
bishop on  this  subject ;  and  in  the  course  of  his  correspondence, 
took  the  liberty  of  gently  imputing  blame  to  Cranmer  for  not  having 
made  greater  progress  in  the  reformation.  Cranmer  does  not 
appear,  however,  to  have  been  at  all  offended  with  Calvin  for  this 
freedom,  but  retained  a  high  esteem  and  value  for  him,  and  kept  up 
an  affectionate  intercourse  with  him  to  the  end  of  life.* 

Archbishop  Cranmer,  not  only  kept  up  a  friendly  communica- 
tion with  Calvin,  as  long  as  he  lived  ;  but  he  also  constantly  con- 
sulted him,  on  all  the  leading  questions  connected  with  the  reform- 
ation. On  a  certain  occasion,  Calvin  despatched  a  messengw  to 
England,  with  letters  to  the  Duke  of  Somerset,  and  likewise  to 
Edward,  to  whom  he  presented,  at  the  same  time,  a  volume  of  his 
Commentary,  just  before  published,  and  dedicated  to  the  King. 
Both  the  king  and  his  council  were  much  gratified  with  this  com- 
munication ',  and  Archbishop  Cranmer,  in  particular,  was  so  much 
pleased,  as  to  send  word  to  Calvin  that  he  could  do  nothing  more 
profitable  to  the  church,  than  to  write  often  to  the  King.t 

Nor  is  this  all.  Calvin  was  not  only  respectfully  consulted  by 
the  English  reformers ;  but  he  had  also  much  influence  among 
them.  That  great  deference  was  paid  to  his  judgment,  will  appear 
from  this  fact,  that  on  the  first  appearance  of  the  English  Liturgy, 
it  prescribed  praying  for  the  dead,  chrism,  extreme  unction,  and 
other  Popish  superstitions.  These  Calvin,  in  a  letter  to  the 
Protector,  very  frankly  and  decidedly  blamed.  The  conse- 
quence of  which  was,  that  all  these  offensive  things  were  left  out, 
agreeably  to  his  advice.  Dr.  Heylin  himself  declares  that  these 
alterations  were  made  in  compliance  with  Calvin's  wishes. — "  The 
"  first  Liturgy,"  says  he,  "  was  discontinued,  and  the  second  su- 
"  perinduced  upon  it,  to  give  satisfaction  unto  Calvin's  cavils,  the 

*  Strype's  Memorials  of  Cranmer,  p.  407—411. 

f  Strypefs  Memorials  of  Cranmer,  p.  413.  Also  Christian  Observer, 
Vol.  in.  p.  628. 


TESTIMONY  OF  CALVIN.  411 

"  curiosities  of  some,  and  the  mistakes  of  others,  his  friends  and 
"  followers."*  And  Dr.  Nichols  gives  us  the  same  information 
«  Four  years  afterwards,"  says  he,  «  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer 
"  underwent  another  review;  wherein  some  ceremonies  and  usages 
"  were  laid  aside,  and  some  new  prayers  added,  at  the  instance  of 
"  Mr.  Calvin  of  Geneva,  and  Bucer,  a  foreign  divine,  who  was 
"  invited  to  be  a  professor  at  Cambridge."!" 

Nor  was  the  authority  of  Calvin  without  its  influence,  in  draw- 
ing up  the  Articles  of  the  Church  of  England.  It  is  commonly 
said,  by  our  episcopal  brethren,  that  those  articles  are  anti-Calvi- 
nistic ;  and  that  especially  on  the  doctrine  of  predestination  as 
exhibited  in  the  seventeenth  article,  the  reformers  held,  and  meant 
to  express,  a  different  opinion  from  that  of  Calvin.  Now  it  hap- 
pens that  this  article  itself  bears  the  most  unquestionable  internal 
evidence  of  the  contrary.  The  qualifying  clause  toward  the  end 
of  it,  which  has  been  quoted  as  decisive  proof  that  the  framers 
rejected  Calvinism,  is  nearly  copied  from  Calvin's  Institutes; 
and  the  latter  part  of  it  is  a  literal  translation  of  that  reformer's 
caution  against  the  abuse  of  this  doctrine.  For  evidence  of  the 
former,  see  his  Institutes,  iii.  2.4.  5.  compared  with  the  article. 
For  proof  of  the  latter,  read  the  following — Proinde,  in  rebus 
agendis,  ea  est  nobis  perspicienda  Dei  voluntas  quam  verbo  suo 
dedarat.  Instit.  i.  17.  5.  "  Furthermore,  in  our  doings,  that 
"  will  of  God  is  to  be  followed,  which  we  have  expressly  declared 
"  to  us  in  the  word  of  God."  Art.  17th. 

Of  the  point  of  light  in  which  Calvin  and  his  opinions  were 
viewed  by  the  leading  divines  of  the  church  of  England,  during  the 
reigns  of  Elizabeth  and  James  I.  the  following  attestation  of  Dr. 
Heylin,  a  bitter  enemy,  affords  the  most  unquestionable  evidence. 
"  It  cannot  be  denied  but  that3  by  the  error  of  these  times,  the 
"  reputation  which  Calvinhad  attained  to  in  both  Universities, and 
"  the  extreme  diligence  of  his  followers,  there  was  a  general  ten- 
"  dency  unto  his  opinions ;  his  book  of  institutes  being,  for  the 
"  most  part,  the  foundation  on  which  the  young  divines  of  those 
"  days  did  build  their  studies."!  Again  he  declares,  "  Of  any  men 


*  History  of  the  Presbyt.  p.  12.  207. 

j-  Comment-  on  the  Book  of  Com.  Prayer,  Pref.  p.  5. 

t  See  Heylin's  Quinq.  Hist.  Works,  p.  626,  &c. 


.412  LETTER  VII. 

"  who  publicly  opposed  the  Calvinian  tenets,  in  the  University  of 
u  Oxford,  till  after  the  beginning  of  King  James*  reign,  I  must 
"  confess  that  I  have  hitherto  found  no  good  assurance."  He 
speaks  of  two  divines,  of  inferior  note,  who  secretly  propagated 
other  principles  ;  and  compares  these  to  the  prophet  Elijah,  who 
considered  himself  as  left  alone  to  oppose  a  whole  world  of  idola- 
ters. Further ;  in  the  reign  of  Charles  I.  more  than  60  years  after 
the  final  settling  of  the  articles,  when  a  suppression  of  the  Calvin- 
istic  doctrines  was  contemplated  by  archbishop  Laud,  Dr.  Heylin 
acknowledges,  that  such  was  the  general  attachment  of  the  bishops 
and  clergy  to  these  doctrines,  that  the  Arminian  party  did  not  dare 
"  to  venture  the  determining  of  these  points  to  a  convocation." 
And  he  again  explicitly  informs  us,  that,  from  the  resettling  of  the 
church  under  Queen  Elizabeth,  to  the  period  already  mentioned, 
"  the  maintainers  of  the  anti-Calvinian  doctrines  were  but  few  in 
number,  and  made  but  a  very  thin  appearance.'**  In  short,  the 
sum  of  his  representation,  compared  with  other  historians,  is,  that 
for  60  years  after  the  articles  were  settled,  only  four  or  Jive  anti- 
Calvinistic  divines  appeared,  in  both  Universities,  and  the  whole 
nation  5  that  out  of  this  number  three  were  actually  punished  fox 
propagating  their  opinions  ;  and  that  the  rest  only  saved  themselves 
by  silence,  and  discretion  !f 

The  celebrated  Hooker  would  have  abhorred  the  thought  of 
joining  with  Dr.  Bowden  and  Mr.  How  in  their  aspersions  of  Cal- 
vin. That  truly  great  man,  with  all  his  episcopal  prejudices, 
speaking  of  the  reformer  of  Geneva,  thus  expresses  himself.  "  I 
"  think  him  the  wisest  man  that  ever  the  French  church  did  enjoy, 
"  since  the  hour  it  enjoyed  him.  His  bringing  up  was  in  the  study 
"  of  the  civil  law.  Divine  knowledge  he  gathered,  not  by  hearing 
"  or  reading,  so  much  as  by  teaching  others.  For  though  thousands 
"  were  debtors  to  him,  as  touching  knowledge  in  that  kind  ;  yet  he 
"  to  none,  but  only  to  God,  the  author  of  that  most  blessed  foun- 
"  tain,  the  book  of  life ;  and  of  the  admirable  dexterity  of  wit, 
"  together  with  the  helps  of  other  learning,  which  were  his  guides." 
In  another  place,  Hooker  speaks  of  Calvin  as  "  a  worthy  vessel 

*  See  Heylin's  Quinq.  Hist.  Works,   p.  626,    &c.     See  also  his  Life  of 
Laud,  147. 
f  See  Overtoil's  True  Churchman,  p.  81,  82,  83. 


TESTIMONY   OF  CALVIN.  413 

of  God's  glory."  And  again  he  remarks,  "  Two  things  of  prin- 
cipal moment  there  are,  which  have  deservedly  procured  him  ho- 
"  nour  throughout  the  world  ;  the  one  his  exceeding  pains  in  com- 
"  posing  the  Institutions  of  Christian  Religion  ;  the  other,  his  no 
"  less  industrious  travails  for  exposition  of  Holy  Scripture  accord- 
"  ing  unto  the  same  institutions."* 

Bishop  Carleton  in  his  Examination  of  Montague's  Appeal, 
printed  in  1626,  and  dedicated  to  Charles  I.  says,  p.  97.  "  As 
"  for  Calvin,  his  name  and  doctrines  are  made  odious  ;  but  why,  I 
"  know  not.  What  greater  pleasure  can  a  man  procure  to  the 
"  enemies  of  the  truth,  than  to  speak  evil  and  odiously  of  those 
"men  whose  service  God  hath  used,  and  made  them  excellent 
"  instruments  to  make  the  truth  known  unto  us  ?  Some  take  it  for 
"a  sign  looking  toward  popery,  when  the  members  of  our  own 
"  Church  offer  such  a  service  to  the  papists,  as  to  speak  evil  of  them 
"  that  have  been  the  greatest  enemies  of  popery,  the  greatest  pro- 
"  pagators  of  the  truth.'7 

Dr.  Hakewell,  chaplain  of  Charles  I.  while  Prince  of  Wales,  in 
a  work  adressed  to  Dr.  Carier,  a  papist,  says,  p.  135.  "  One  of 
"  the  main  points  you  drive  at  is,  to  put  us  off  from  all  fellowship, 
"  and  communion  with  those  Churches  who  acknowledge  Calvin 
"  to  have  been  an  excellent  instrument  of  God,  in  abolishing  and 
"  suppressing  of  popery,  and  the  clearing  and  spreading  of  his 
"  truth ;  that  so,  being  separated  from  them,  we  may  either  stand 
"  single,  and  be  encountered  alone,  or  return  again  to  our  old  bias, 
tt  and  relapse  unto  Rome  ;  and  so  through  Calvin's  sides,  you  strike 
"  at  the  throat  and  heart  of  our  religion." 

Dr.  Joshua  Hoyl,  Professor  of  Divinity  in  Trinity  College, 
Dublin,  in  the  reign  of  Charles  I.  in  his  Rejoinder  to  Mr.  Malone's 
Reply  on  the  Real  Presence,  dedicated  to  Archbishop  Usher,  in  p. 
654,  &c,  says — "  That  great .  instrument  of  God's  glory,  John 
Calvin,  a  man  of  whom  I  had  almost  said,  as  once  it  was  of  Moses, 
there  arose  not  a  prophet  since  like  him  in  Israel,  nor  since  the 
apostles'  days  was  before  hiri* — His  works  shall  praise  him  for  wit, 
eloquence,  fulness,  and  soundness  of  divinity.^ 

On  this  part  of  the  subject  I  shall  content  myself  with  one  wit- 
ness more.  A  clergymen  of  the  church  of  England,  now  living, 

*  Preface  to  his  Ecclesiastical  Polity. 


414  LETTER  VII. 

who  writes  in  the  Christian  Observer,  in  speaking  of  the  disposi- 
tion of  many  in  his  own  Church,  to  vilify  the  name  and  opinions 
of  Calvin,  makes  the  following  remarks. — "  Few  names  stand 
"  higher  or  in  more  deserved  pre-eminence,  amongst  the  wise  arid 
"pious  members  of  the  English  Church,  than  that  of  bishop  An- 
"  drews.  His  testimony  to  the  memory  of  Calvin  is,  that  he  was 
"  <  an  illustrious  person,  and  never  to  be  mentioned  without  a  pre- 
"  face  of  the  highest  honour. '  Whoever  examines  into  the  sermons, 
"  writings,  &c.  of  our  divines,  in  the  reign  of  Elizabeth,  and  James 
"  I.  will  continually  meet  with  epithets  of  honour  with  which  his 
"  name  is  mentioned  ;  the  learned, the  wise,  thejudicious,  the  pious 
"  Calvin,  are  expressions  every  where  to  be  found  in  the  remains 
"of  those  times.  Tt  is  well  known  that  his  Institutes  were  read 
"  and  studied  in  the  Universities,  by  every  student  in  divinity, 
"  for  a  considerable  portion  of  a  century  ;  nay,  that  by  a  Convoca- 
"  tion  held  at  Oxford,  that  book  was  recommended  to  the  general 
"  study  of  the  nation.  So  far  was  the  Church  of  England,  and 
ft  her  chief  divines  from  countenancing  that  unbecoming  and  absurd 
"  treatment,  with  which  the  name  of  this  eminent  protestant  is  now 
"  so  frequently  dishonoured,  that  it  would  be  no  difficult  matter  to 
"  prove,  that  there  is  not,  perhaps,  a  parallel  instance  upon  record, 
"  of  any  single  individual  being  equally  and  so  unequivocally  vene- 
"  rated,  for  the  union  of  wisdom  and  piety,  both  in  England,  and 
"  by  a  large  body  of  the  foreign  Churches,  as  John  Calvin.  No- 
"  thing  but  ignorance  of  the  ecclesiastical  records  of  those  times, 
"  or  resolute  prejudice,  could  cast  a  cloak  of  concealment  over  this 
"  fact.  It  has  been  evidenced,  by  the  combined  testimony  both  of 
(( enemies  and  friends  to  his  system  of  doctrines."* 

Dr.  Bowden,  not  content  with  aspersing  the  opinions  of  Calvin, 
goes  further,  and  attacks,  with  great  apparent  cordiality,  his  per- 
sonal character.  Besides  a  number  of  reproachful  epithets,  which 
the  Dr.  throws  out  in  various  parts  of  his  work,  the  following  pas- 
sage occurs  towards  the  close.  Letter  20.  "  The  return  of  Calvin 
"  evinced  the  gentle  sway  of  presbytery.  Castellio,  (he  probably 
"  means  Castalio,')  a  man  of  great  learning,  was  soon  expelled,  at 
"  the  instigation  of  the  reformer.  A  violent  contest  then  took 
u  place  between  him  and  the  Senate,  about  the  election  of  a  minis- 

*  Christian  Observer,  Vol.  II.  p.  143. 


TESTIMONY  OP  CALVIN.  415 

"  ter.  It  produced  almost  sedition.  Calvin's  quarrels  with  Peri- 
"  nus  proceeded  to  such  a  length  that  the  council  became  furious 
16  against  one  another.  And  what  do  you  think  was  the  cause  of 
"  it  ?  Why  Perinus  thought  it  no  harm  to  recreate  himself  now  and 
"  then  with  dancing.  But  Calvin,  although  no  bishop,  played  the 
"  tyrant,  and  forbad  that  amusement  upon  pain  of  excommunica- 
"  tion.  Perinus  was  not  to  be  treated  in  that  manner.  He  op- 
"  posed  such  tyranny  ;  and  two  of  the  ministers  who  joined  with 
"  him,  were  turned  out  of  their  livings.  The  contention  became 
"  general  throughout  the  city,  and  the  council,  taking  different 
"sides,  almost  cut  one  another's  throats.  One  person  was  put  to 
"  death  for  libelling  Calvin.  Another  was  banished  the  city  for 
"for  preaching  against  predestination.  Servetus  was  burned  for 
"  heresy.  So  much  for  the  mother  church  of  Prebytery." 

It  is  easy,  in  half  a  line,  to  convey  a  slander  which  it  would 
require  several  pages  to  expose.  I  cannot  help  regretting  that  Dr. 
Bowden  has  permitted  himself  to  believe  and  to  retail  all  the  un- 
founded charges  against  Calvin,  which  were  first  propagated  by 
malice,  and  which  ignorance  and  prejudice  have,  ever  since,  con- 
tinued to  repeat.  It  is  impossible  here  to  enter  into  a  full  refuta- 
tion of  these  charges.  I  can  only  suggest  a  few  hints  for  aiding 
those  who  have  a  disposition  further  to  pursue  the  inquiry. 

With  respect  to  the  case  of  Castalio,  it  is  thus  related  by  M. 
Sennebier,  one  of  the  most  respectable  biographers  of  Calvin,  and 
whose  testimony  is  entitled  to  the  more  credit,  as  he  was  an  oppo- 
nent of  that  reformer's  religious  principles.  "  Calvin  knew  Casta- 
"  lio,  at  Slrasburg,  in  1539.  He  procured  for  him  the  place  of  re- 
"  gent  in  Geneva,  in  1543.  This  man,  who  was  a  good  humanist, 
"  but  an  extravagant  theologian,  translated  the  Bible  into  Latin. 
"  He  endeavoured  to  make  the  Hebrews  speak  the  language  of 
"  Cicero  ;  and  even  essayed  to  make  them  sometimes  sigh  the  ten- 
u  der  verses  of  Ovid.  On  this  account  Calvin  strongly  blamed  his 
"  version,  together  with  different  sentiments  which  this  singular 
"  man  did  not  fear  to  advance.  Castalio,  feeling  hurt,  demanded 
"  of  the  council  permission  to  dispute  publicly  with  Calvin  on 
"the  descent  of  Jesus  Christ  into  hell.  They  refused  him  this 
"  permission.  But  from  love  to  truth,  and  from  regard  to  liberty 
"  of  thought,  they  permitted  him  to  open  this  dispute  before  the 
"  assembly  of  ministers.  It  continued  a  long  time  without  any 


416  LETTER  VII. 

"  success.  Castalio  was  so  irritated,  that  he  attacked  Calvin  in 
"  a  sermon  destined  to  resolve  the  objections  that  could  be  opposed 
(t  to  the  doctrine  which  he  had  taught  ;  and  he  so  grossly  insulted 
t(  the  ministers  of  Geneva,  that  the  council  deposed  him  from  the 
"  holy  ministry,  and  took  from  him  the  place  of  Regent.  Cas- 
"  talio  retired  to  Basil,  where  he  persisted  in  his  extraordinary 
"  sentiments,,  aud  his  hatred  of  Calvin,  until  his  death."* 

The  conduct  of  Calvin,  in  the  case  of  Perrin,  is  thus  stated,  by 
the  same  writer.  "  Calvin,  in  the  exercise  of  discipline,  saw  only 
"  the  man  who  had  violated  his  duties,  in  the  man  in  office,  who 
"  had  believed  that  he  might  be  dispensed  from  them.  He  caused 
"  to  be  cited  before  the  consistory  the  wife  of  the  Captain-Gene- 
"  eral,  Ami  Perrin  who  had  danced,  acted  in  a  comedy,  and  blas- 
"  phemed  in  a  particular  house.  Ami  Perrin  himself,  whose  life 
"  was  very  irregular,  was  excommunicated,  deprived  of  his  office 
"  of  counsellor,  and  condemned  two  months,  imprisonment.  But, 
"  though  this  man  had  always  instigated  the  enemies  of  Calvin, 
({ though  he  had  caused  all  the  difficulties  that  Calvin  experienced 
"  at  Geneva  from  the  government ;  Calvin,  nevertheless,  employ - 
"  ed  his  eloquence  and  his  influence  to  cause  the  judgment  against 
"  him  to  be  annulled ;  and  had  the  Christian  satisfaction  of  seeing 
"  his  mortal  enemy  restored  to  his  offices,  and  delivered  from 
"  prison."! 

"  One  person,"  says  Dr.  B.  "  was  put  to  death  for  libelling 
Calvin."  This  wonderful  assertion  refers  to  the  case  of  James 
Gruet,  who  was  beheaded  July  26,  1547.  He  was  a  man  notorious 
for  his  vice  and  profligacy — He,  of  course,  hated  Calvin,  and 
abused  him  in  the  most  violent  manner.  But  this  was  not  the 
cause  of  his  death.  In  his  sentence  he  is  condemned,  "  for  having 
"  spoken  with  contempt  of  religion ;  for  having  maintained  that 
"  divine  and  human  laws  were  the  work  of  caprice  ;  for  having 
"  written  impious  letters,  and  libertine  verses  ;  for  having  main- 
"  tained  that  fornication  was  not  criminal,  when  the  two  parties 
"  were  agreed ;  for  having  laboured  to  overturn  ecclesiastical  ordi- 
"  nances,  and  to  shake  by  a  petition  the  authority  of  the  consisto- 
"  ry  5  for  having  threatened  the  reformers  and  ministers,  and  hav- 

*  Sennebier's  Histoire  Literaire  de  Geneve,  Tom.  i.  p.  196,  197. 
f  Senneb.  Lit.  Hist.  i.  200. 


TESTIMONY  Otf  CALVIN.  417 

"  ing  spoken  ill  of  them,  especially  of  Calvin  ;  for  having  written 
"  letters  calculated  to  irritate  the  court  of  France  against  Calvin, 
«  and  having  engaged  the  King  of  France  to  write  to  the  council 
"  against  him  ;  and,  finally,  for  having  threatened  the  council 
"  itself/'* — Do  you  not  admire  the  candour  and  impartiality  of 
"  Doctor  Bowden  ? 

The  Doctor  proceeds—"  Another  was  banished  the  city  for 
preaching  against  predestination."  This  was  the  noted  Jerome 
Bolsec,  of  whom  Dr.  Watkins,  an  episcopal  clergyman,  in  his 
Biographical  Dictionary ,  gives  the  following  account :  "  He  was 
"  an  infamous  renegade,  who,  from  being  a  Carmelite,  turned 
"  protestant,  practised  for  some  time  as  a  physician,  and  married. 
"  He  went  to  Geneva,  and  abandoned  physic  for  theology ;  but 
"  having  avowed  the  doctrines  of  Pelagius  in  a  public  discourse, 
"  which  was  answered  by  Calvin  on  the  spot,  the  magistrates,  on 
"  account  of  his  turbulent  conduct,  banished  him  from  the  city: 
"  on  which  he  retired  to  Berne,  where  he  raised  a  great  deal  of 
"  disturbance,  and  was  then  driven  from  that  city.  He  returned 
"  after  this  to  France,  and  went  back  to  his  old  communion  (that 
tc  of  Rome  ;)  and,  by  way  of  showing  the  sincerity  of  his  conversion, 
«  wrote  what  he  called  the  Lives  of  Theodore  Beza,  and  John 
"  Calvin,  filled  with  the  blackest  falsehoods,  and  expressed  in  the 
"  most  abusive  language.  He  lived  in  a  profligate  manner,  and  suf- 
"  fered  his  wife  to  prostitute  herself  for  gain."  Sennebier  also  in- 
forms us  that  Bolsec,  having  adopted  the  sentiments  of  Pelagius, 
came  to  publish  them  at  Geneva  as  a  missionary.  He  was  censured 
by  the  ministers,  and  banished  by  the  council,  after  useless  attempts 
to  silence  him. — This  is  the  man  whose  part  Doctor  Bowden,  more 
than  once,  indirectly  takes,  for  the  purpose  of  blackening  the  char- 
acter of  the  venerable  Calvin  ! 

The  case  of  Servetus,  which  has  furnished  to  the  revilers  of  Cal- 
vin a  favourite  theme  of  declamation,  for  near  two  hundred  years, 
Dr.  Bowden  could  not  have  been  expected  either  to  forget,  or  to 
pass  in  silence.  He  has  noticed  it  in  the  usual  style  ;  and  charged 
it  to  the  "  tyrannical  spirit"  of  Calvin,  and  the  "  gentle  sway  of 
presbytery."  On  this  accusation  I  will  only  offer  the  following 
remarks. 

*  Lit.  Hist.  i.  202. 
3  G 


418  LETTER  VII. 

First  ;  it  has  never  been  shown  that  the  death  of  Servetus  can 
be  justly  imputed  to  Calvin.  Sennebier,  though  no  Calvinist, 
assures  us  that  the  imputation  is  a  cruel  calumny  j  that  the  bitter- 
est enemies  of  Calvin,  who  were  contemporary  with  him,  did  not 
dare  to  advance  it ;  and  that  it  has  been  since  repeated  and  believed, 
only  by  those  who  were  ignorant  of  facts.  He  declares  that 
Calvin,  so  far  from  desiring  the  death  of  this  arch-heretic,  was  anx- 
ious to  prevent  it ;  that  he  warned  him  against  coming  to  Geneva, 
and  apprized  him,  that  if  he  did  come  thither,  he  would  probably 
lose  his  life  5  which  he  concluded  must  be  the  case  from  the  spirit 
of  the  laws  and  government  of  that  city.  This  writer  further  as- 
serts, that  the  council  of  Geneva,  before  passing  sentence  on  Ser~ 
veins,  asked  the  advice  of  the  Swiss  cantons,  who  unanimously  ex- 
horted them  to  put  him  to  death.  And,  finally,  he  informs  us, 
that  after  sentence  had  been  passed  on  Servetus,  Calvin  laboured 
to  procure  a  mitigation  of  it,  but  without  effect ;  and  that  he  sin- 
cerely deplored  his  fate.*  If  this  statement  be  true,  and  the  au- 
thor supports  it  by  a  reference  to  undoubted  authorities ;  then  the 
representation  of  Dr.  Bowden,  or  rather  of  those  revilers  of 
Calvin  whom  he  has  followed,  is  something  worse  than  ungene- 
rous. 

But,  Secondly  ;  supposing  the  fact  to  be  as  Dr.  Bowden  insinu- 
ates. Supposing  it  established  that  Calvin  fully  approved,  and 
even  procured  the  death  of  Servelus  ;  still  it  was  evidently  not  so 
much  the  fault  of  the  man,  as  the  universal  delusion  of  the  age  in 
which  he  lived  ;  an  age  in  which  liberty  of  conscience  was  not  at 
all,  either  understood  or  admitted,  by  any  denomination  of  Chris- 
tians ;  and  in  which  the  most  pious,  benevolent,  and  exemplary 
men  were  more  or  less  chargeable  with  error  on  this  point.  It  is 
certain  that  Bucer,  Oecolampadius,  Beza,  and  even  the  mild  and 
gentle  Melancthon,  approved  the  sentence  that  was  executed  on 
Servetus.^  It  is  certain  that  Archbishop  Cranmer,  and  the  great 
body  of  the  English  reformers,  were  decidedly  of  the  opinion  that 
he  ought  to  have  suffered  death. "|  And  it  is  equally  undeniable, 
that  the  pious  and  excellent  Bishop  Hall,  solemnly  pronounced, 

*  Lit.  Hist,  de  Geneve,  Tom.  i.  p.  204,  &c. 
•f-  Sennebier.    Also  Melancthon*s  Epistles. 

*  See  History  of  Popery,  Lond.  4to.  Vol.  n.  p.  352. 


TESTIMONY  OP  CALVIN.  419 

that,  in  that  transaction,  Calvin  DID  WELL  APPROVE  HIMSELF  TO 
GOD'S  CHURCH.*  To  reproach  Calvin,  therefore,  for  not  possess- 
ing that  light  which  no  man  of  his  age  possessed  ;  to  attempt  to 
fix  a  stigma  upon  his  memory  for  an  error  into  which  he  fell  in 
common  with  all  the  best  of  his  contemporaries,  is  certainly  as  un- 
reasonable as  it  is  unjust. 

KQ{,  finally  ;  why  do  Dr.  Bowden  and  his  friends  take  so  much 
delight  in   reproaching  Calvin  for  a  single  supposed  instance  of 
persecution  ?  And  why  do  they  take  so  much  pains  to  make  it  be- 
lieved that  the  death  of  Servetus  was  the  native  product  of  the 
"  spirit  of  Presbyterianism  ?"  Have  these  gentlemen  forgotten  the 
history  of  the  Church  of  England  ?  Or  do  they  suppose  that  we 
have  forgotten  it?  Have  they  lost  all  recollection  of  the  conduct  of 
their  boasted  favourites,  Archbishops  Cranmer,    Whitgifl,  and 
Laud)  to  say  nothing  of  other  eminent  dignitaries  of  that  church  ? 
Or  do  they  imagine  that  our  memories  are  as  politely  accommodat- 
ing as  their  own  ?      Calvin  is  only  charged  with  bringing  one  un- 
happy victim  to  the  stake ;  and  even  this  is  a  false  charge.     But  it 
is  acknowledged,  even  by  episcopal  historians  themselves,  that  the 
pious  and  excellent  Cranmer,  was  active  in  dragging  at  leastybwr 
persons  to  the  flames,  of  whom  two  were  women.     In  the  reign  of 
Henry  VIII.  the  archbishop  is  expressly  said,  by  Strype  and  Bur- 
net,  to  have  been  concerned  in  burning  John  Lambert,  and  Anne 
Askew,  for  those  very  principles  which  he  himself  afterwards  em- 
braced»t     And  in  the  reign  of  Edward  VI.  he  is  confessed,  by  the 
same  historians,  to  have  "  procured  the  death,"  (as  one  of  them  ex- 
presses it,  )  of  Joanna  Bocher,  and  George  Paris.  The  King  was 
opposed  to  the  execution  of  these  persons,  and  signed  the  warrants 
for  their  execution  with  tears  in  his  eyes,  telling  Cranmer  that  he 
did  it  in  compliance  with  his  persuasion,  and  in  submission  to  his 
ecclesiastical  authority ;  and  that  if  it  was  wrong,  he,  (the  archbi- 
shop,) must  answer  for  it  to  God.f      In  this  representation,  the 
episcopal  biographer,  Mr'.  Gilpin,  in  his  Lives  of  the  Reformers, 
concurs.     "  Joan   Bocher,'9  says  he,  "  and  George  Paris  were 

•See  his  Christian  Moderation,  Book  II.  Sect.  14.  Works,  Vol.  III.  p.  50. 
|  Cranmer's  Memorials,  Book.  i.  chap.  17.  p.  65.     Bishop  Burnet's 
History  of  the  Reformation,  Vol.  u.  p.  112. 
*  Hist.  Ref.  II.  112. 


420  LETTER  VJI. 

"  accused,  one  for  denying  the  humanity  of  Christ ;  the  other  for 
"  denying  his  divinity.  They  were  both  tried  and  condemned  to 
lt  the  stake ;  and  the  archbishop  not  only  consented  to  these  acts  of 
"  blood  but  even  persuaded  the  aversion  of  the  young  king  into  a 
"  compliance.  Your  majesty  must  distinguish,  (said  he,  informing 
"  his  royal  pupil's  conscience,)  between  common  opinions,  and  such 
"  as  are  the  essential  articles  of  faith.  These  latter  we  must,  on 
"  no  account,  suffer  to  be  opposed."* 

But  it  is  gratifying  to  know,  that  Presbyterians,  instead  of 
delighting  to  load  Cranmer  with  reproach,  for  these  instances  of 
misguided  zeal,  have  always  treated  his  memory  with  a  respectful 
generosity.  They  have  seldom  failed  to  charge  this  part  of  *his 
conduct  to  the  delusion  of  the  age,  and  not  to  the  heart  of  the 
man  ;  and  have  been  ready  to  acknowledge,  in  the  strongest  terms, 
his  excellent  qualities,  and  his  noble  services  to  the  church  of 
Christ.  And  it  is  but  justice  to  add,  that  the  bishops  and  other 
leading  divines  of  England,  who  were  contemporary  with  Calvin, 
or  who  lived  half  a  century  after  him,  always  treated  his  character 
with  similar  respect  and  affection,  nor  ever  lisped  a  syllable  in  the 
strain  of  Dr.  Bowden.  To  what  are  we  to  ascribe  the  different  re- 
presentation which  is  now  so  fashionable,  and  so  industriously 
propagated  among  our  episcopal  brethren  ?  How  shall  we  account 
for  it,  that  gentlemen  who  abound  in  unqualified  praises  of  Cran- 
mer, and  even  of  Laud,  are  not  ashamed  continually  to  reproach 
the  memory  of  Calvin,  with  conduct  in  which  they  went  far  beyond 
him  ?  Can  charity  herself  avoid  suspecting,  that  it  is  the  man  him- 
self who  is  hated,  more  than  his  alleged  persecuting  spirit  ? 

Dr.  Bowden  and  Mr.  How  both  throw  out  many  reflections  on 
that  system  of  doctrine  which  is  generally  called  Calvinism.  The 
latter,  in  particular,  speaks  of  it  as  a  "  detestable"  system,  of 
which  he  has  no  language  adequately  to  express  his  "  abhorrence." 
It  was  my  original  intention  to  devote  a -whole  letter  to  the  consi- 
deration of  this  greatly  misunderstood  and  abused  system  of  truth. 
But  having  been  already  carried  so  much  beyond  the  limits  at  first 
prescribed  to  this  reply,  I  dare  not  so  far  trespass  on  your  patience, 
as  to  enter  into  the  formal  discussion  of  a  subject  which  has  engaged 

*  The  Lives  of  Reformers,  By  William  Gilpin,  M.  A.  Vol.  u.p.  99. 


TESTIMONY  OF  CALVIN.  421 

the  attention  of  the  strongest  heads  and  best  hearts  that  the  world 
ever  knew ;  and  a  subject  as  awful  and  difficult  as  it  is  interesting. 

I  cannot  forbear,  however  to  state  a  few  facts.  And  when  these 
are  calmly  considered,  I  think  your  surprise  at  the  conduct  of  these 
gentlemen  will  by  no  means  be  diminished. 

The  Thirty-nine  Articles  of  the  church  of  England  are  un 
doubtedly  Calvinistic.  This  is  proved  not  only  by  the  bare 
inspection  of  the  articles  themselves;  but  also  by  the  known  senti- 
ments of  those  who  formed  them  ;  and  by  the  decisive  interpreta- 
tion of  some  of  the  ablest  bishops,  and  other  divines,  that  ever 
adorned  that  church.* 

The  same  Convocation  which  drew  up  the  thirty-nine  articles, 
reviewed,  corrected,  formally  approved,  and  ordeied  to  be  pub- 
lished, as  it  now  stands,  the  celebrated  Catechism  of  Dr.  Nowell. 
This  Catechism  is  acknowledged,  by  the  worst  enemies  of  Calvin, 
to  be  decidedly  Calvinistic.  It  is  acknowledged  to  be  so  by  Bishop 
Cleaver,  who,  a  few  years  ago,  gave  a  new  edition  of  it.  And  yet 
the  Convocation,  which  embraced  all  the  principal  dignitaries  of 
the  church,  publicly  recommended  it,  as  "  a  standing  summary  of 
the  doctrines  professed  in  that  church;'*  and  many  years  after  it 
was  held  in  such  high  esteem,  by  Archbishops  Whitgift  and  Par- 
ker, and  other  cotemporary  prelates,  that  even  ministers  were 
enjoined  to  study  it,  that  they  might  "  learn  true  divinity  from  it."t 

The  illustrious  reformer  and  martyr,  Bradford,  a  short  time 
before  he  suffered,  wrote  and  published  a  decidedly  Calvinistic 
work  on  election  and  predestination,  which  he  sent  to  Arcbishop 
Cranmer,  and  to  Bishops  Ridley  and  Latimer,  who  all  gave  it 
their  approbation;  after  which  it  received  the  approbation  of 
"  the  rest  of  the  eminent  ministers  in  and  about  London  "$ 

*  See  Overton's  True  Churchman,  passim.    1  know  that  this  writer  has 
made  some  mistakes.    But  when  his  work  is  compared  with  the  able 
Review  of  it  in  the  Christian  Observer,  an  episcopal  journal ;  and  also 
with  Mr.  Daubeny's  answer,  and  the  review  of  the  latter  in  the  same 
journal,  the  mass  of  evidence  in  support  of  my  position  will  be  found 
irresistible. 

f  Strype's  Annals,  313—316.   Life  of  Parker,  122.  301. 

*  Strype's  Memorials  of  Cranmer,  p.  350.  The  editors  of  the  Christian 
Observer  attest  that  they  have  seen  Bradford's  treatise;  and  that  it  is 
unquestionably  Calvinistic. 


422  LETTER  VIJ. 

The  famous  Lambeth  articles,  formed 'in  the  reign  of  Queen 
Elizabeth,  are  acknowledged  by  all  who  ever  read  them,  to  be 
among  the  most  strongly  Calvinistical  compositions  that  ever 
were  penned.  Yet  these  articles  were  drawn  up  and  signed  by 
Archbishop  Whitgift,  that  very  prelate  of  whose  character  and 
principles  Dr.  Hobart  frequently  speaks  in  the  most  exalted  terms, 
and  whom  he  holds  up  to  view  as  one  of  the  most  illustrious  di- 
vines and  fathers  of  the  church  of  England. — The  Archbishop  was 
assisted  in  this  service  by  the  bishops  of  London  and  Bangor,  and 
by  some  others.  After  receiving  the  public  approbation  of  these 
dignataries,  the  articles  were  sent  to  the  archbishop  of  York,  and 
the  bishop  of  Rochester,  who  also  subscribed  them.  Thus  ratified, 
Archbishop  Whitgift  sent  them  to  the  University  of  Cambridge, 
with  a  letter,  in  which  he  declared,  "  That  these  articles  were  not 
"  to  be  considered  as  laws  and  decrees,  but  as  propositions,  which 
"  he  and  his  brethren  were  persuaded  were  true,  and  corresponding 
"  with  the  doctrine  professed  in  the  Church  of  England,  and 
"  established  by  the  laws  of  the  land.3'*  Nor  is  this  all.  It  having 
been  suggested  by  some,  that  the  archbishop  agreed  to  these  arti- 
cles, rather  for  the  sake  of  peace,  than  because  he  believed  them ; 
Strype,  his  episcopal  biographer,  repels  the  charge  with  indigna- 
tion ;  declaring  that  such  an  insinuation  is  as  false,  as  it  is  mean 
and  disparaging  to  the  primate.t 

We  have  seen  also,  in  a  foregoing  part  of  this  letter,  by  the  con- 
fession of  Heylin  himself,  an  implacable  enemy  of  Calvin,  that  the 
great  body  of  the  bishops,  and  other  clergy  of  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land, were  doctrinal  Calvinists,  for  more  than  half  a  century  after 
the  articles  were  formed.  And  we  have  found  a  modern  episcopal 
clergyman  asserting,  on  undeniable  evidence,  that  "  Calvin' 's  Insti- 
"  tutions  were  read  and  studied,  in  both  the  Universities,  by  every 
a  student  in  divinity,  for  a  considerable  portion  of  a  century ;  nay, 
"  that  by  a  convocation  held  at  Oxford,  that  book  was  recom- 
"  mended  to  the  general  study  of  the  nation." 

All  the  delegates  from  the  Church  of  England  to  the  synod  of 
Dort,  among  whom  were  Bishop  Carleton,  Bishop  Hall,  and  Bi- 
shop Davenant,  formally  subscribed  to  the  five  Calvinistic  articles 
drawn  up  and  adopted  by  that  venerable  synod.  On  their  return 

*  Strype's  Life  of  Whifgift,  p.  461—463.  t  Ibid.  p.  462. 


TESTIMONY   .OP   CALVIN.  423 

return  home,  they  were  attacked  by  a  certain  writer,  and  charged 
with  having  given  countenance  to  error,  and  also  with  having  de- 
parted from  the  public  standards  of  their  own  church.  Against 
this  attack  they  thought  proper  to  defend  themselves,  and  accord- 
ingly wrote  a  joint  attestation,  which  contains  the  following  pas- 
sage. "  Whatsoever  there  was  assented  unto,  and  subscribed  by 
"  us,  concerning  the  Jive  articles,  either  in  the  joint  synodical 
"  judgment,  or  in  our  particular  collegiate  suffrage,  is  not  only 
"  warrantable  by  the  Holy  Scriptures,  but  also  conformable  to  the 
"  received  doctrine  of  our  said  venerable  mother  ;  which  we  are 
"  ready  to  maintain  and  justify  against  all  gainsayers."* 

Again,  Bishop  Hall,  in  a  work  of  his  own,  addressing  some  who 
had  charged  him  and  other  bishops  of  his  day,  with  entertaining 
Arminian  sentiments  as  to  the  doctrine  of  election,  thus  indignant- 
ly replies  to  the  charge — "  You  add '  election  upon  faith  foreseen.' 
"  What !  nothing  but  gross  untruths  ?  Is  this  the  doctrine  of  the  bi- 
"  shops  of  England  ?  Have  they  not  strongly  confuted  it  in  par 
"  pists  and  Arminians  ?t  Have  they  not  CRIED  IT  DOWN  TO  THE 

LOWEST  PIT  OF    HELL  ?"| 

The  same  pious  prelate  himself  .tells  us,  that,  after  his  return 
from  the  synod  of  Dort,  where  he  had  been  an  advocate  of  Calvin- 
istic  doctrine,  and  a  warm  opponent  of  Arminianism,  he  was  dis- 
tressed to  find  that  heresy  gaining  ground  in  England.  "  Not 
"  many  years,'5  says  he,  "  after  settling  at  home,  it  grieved  my 
"  soul  to  see  our  own  church  begin  to  sicken  of  the  same  disease, 
"  which  we  had  endeavoured  to  cure  in  our  neighbours."^ 

If  all  this  be  not  conclusive  testimony,  that  the  thirty-nine  arti- 
cles, which  Mr.  How  has  recently  subscribed  are  Calvinistic;  that 
the  reformers  were  Calvinistic  ;  and  that  the  great  body  of  the 
English  bishops  and  other  clergy,  were  Calvinistic  until  the  time 
of  Archbishop  Laud,  then  I  know  not  what  evidence  can  be  called 

*  Seetheir/om*  Attestation. 

f  It  seems,  then,  that  Bishop  Hall  was  not  only  a  Calvinist  himself;  but 
that  he  considered  the  body  of  English  bishops,  until  his  time,  as  having 
been  Cahinists  also.  But  perhaps  Dr.  Bowden  and  Mr.  How  understand 
this  matter  better  than  the  good  bishop  ! 

*  Defence  of  the  Humble  Remonstrance.  Works.     Vol.  III.  246. 

§  Some  Specialities  of  the  Life  of  Joseph  Hall,  Bishop  of  Norwich,  writ- 
ten by  himself.— Prefixed  to  the  3d  vol.  of  his  Works. 


424  LETTER  VTI. 

conclusive.  And  yet,  Mr.  How,  with  the  highest  praises  of  those 
articles,  and  reformers,  and  prelates,  and  clergy,  in  his  mouth,  does 
not  scruple  to  speak  of  Calvinism  in  language  which  could  scarcely 
be  more  contemptuous,  or  more  abhorrent,  if  it  were  acknow- 
ledged to  be  a  system  of  the  most  undisguised  blasphemy  !  I 
am  happy  that  it  is  not  incumbent  on  me,  either  to  account  for  this 
fact,  or  to  frame  an  apology  for  it. 

But  you  will,  perhaps,  ask  are  there  no  difficulties  to  be  en- 
countered in  embracing  that  system  of  evangelical  truth,  which  is 
usually  styled  Calvinism  ?  It  ought  not  to  be  disguised  that  there 
are  in  this  system  real  difficulties,  which,  probably,  no  human  wis- 
dom will  ever  be  able  to  solve.  But  are  the  difficulties  which 
belong  to  the  system  of  Arminianism,  either  fewer  in  number,  or 
less  in  magnitude  ?  Instead  of*this,  they  are  more  numerous,  and 
more  serious ;  more  contradictory  to  reason,  more  inconsistent  with 
the  character  of  God,  and  more  directly  opposed  both  to  the  letter 
and  the  spirit  of  his  word.  I  rest  in  the  Calvinistic  system,  with 
a  confidence  daily  increasing,  not  only  because  the  more  I  examine 
it,  the  more  clearly  it  appears  to  me  to  be  taught  in  the  Holy 
Scriptures ;  but  also  because,  the  more  frequently  and  the  more 
carefully  I  compare  the  amount  of  the  difficulties,  on  both  sides, 
the  more  heavily  they  seem  to  me  to  press  against  the  Arminian 
doctrine. 

It  is  easy  and  popular  to  object,  that  Calvinism  has  a  tendency 
to  cut  the  nerves  of  all  spiritual  exertion  ;  that,  if  we  are  elected 
there  is  no  need  of  exertion,  and  if  not  elected,  it  will  be  in  vain. 
But  this  objection  lies  with  quite  as  much  force  against  the  Arminian 
hypothesis.  Dr.  Bowden,  and  Mr.  How,  and  all  Arminians9 
though  they  reject  the  doctrine  of  election,  explicitly  grant  that, 
while  some  will,  in  fact,  be  saved,  others  will,  in  fact,  as  certainly 
perish.  Now  it  is  perfectly  plain  that  this  position  is  just  as  liable 
to  the  abuse  above  stated,  as  the  Calvinislic  doctrine.  For  a  man 
may  say,  "  I  shall  either  be  saved,  or  I  shall  not.  If  I  am  to  be 
"  saved,  no  anxiety  about  it  is  necessary  ;  and  if  I  am  to  perish,  all 
"  anxiety  about  it  will  be  useless."  Would  these  gentlemen  con- 
sider this  objection  as  a  valid  one  against  their  creed  ?  I  presume 
not.'  But  it  has  no  more  validity  against  ours.  Another  objection 
is  equally  common  and  popular.  It  is  said,  if  none  but  the  elect 
will  be  saved,  how  can  God  be  considered  as  sincere  in  making  the 


TESTIMONY  OF  CALVIN.  425 

offers  of  mercy  to  all?  The  Arminian  is  just  as  much  bound  to 
answer  this  question  as  the  Calvinist.  He  grants  that  all  men  will 
not,  in  fact,  be  saved;  he  grants,  moreover,  that  God  foreknew  this 
from  eternity  ;  and  that  he  not  only  foreknew  the  general  fact ; 
but  also  the  particular  persons  who  will,  and  who  will  not,  par- 
take of  salvation.  How,  then,  we  may  ask  the  Arminian,  is  God 
sincere,  on  his  plan,  in  urging  and  entreating  all  to  accept  of  mer- 
cy ?  Again,  it  has  been  frequently  asked, "  If  none  but  the  elect 
will  be  saved,  is  not  God  a  partial  master,  and  a  respecter  of 
persons?'7  But  it  may  be  quite  as  plausibly  and  confidently 
asked,  "  .How  can  we  reconcile  it  with  the  impartiality  and  the 
benevolence  of  God,  to  save  only  a  part  of  mankind  ?"  If  salvation 
be  his  work,  then,  why  does  he  not  save  all  ?  Why  does  he  make 
a  distinction  ?  And  if  it  benot  his  work,  then  men  save  themselves. 
Will  even  Mr.  How,  with  all  his  inveteracy  against  Calvinism,  go 
this  length  ? 

But  while  all  the  objections  which  our  Arminian  brethren  urge 
against  Calvinism,  lie  with  full  as  much  force  against  their  own 
system ;  there  are  others,  of  a  still  more  serious  nature,  to  which 
that  system  is  liable,  and  which,  if  I  were  compelled  to  admit, 
would  plunge  me  into  darkness  and  despair. 

Yes,  my  brethren,  if  I  could  bring  myself  to  believe,  that  the  infi- 
nite and  eternal  God  has  laid  no  plan  in  the  kingdom  of  his  grace, 
but  has  left  all  to  be  decided  by  chance,  or  accident,  not  knowing 
the  end  from  the  beginning — If  I  could  believe  that  the  purposes 
of  Jehovah,  instead  of  being  eternal,  are  all  formed  in  time ;  and 
instead  of  being  immutable,  are  all  liable  to  be  altered  by  the  chang 
ing  will  of  his  creatures — If  I  could  suppose  that,  after  all  the  Re- 
deemer has  done  and  suffered,  the  work  of  redemption  cannot  be 
completed,  unless  perishing  mortals  choose  to  lend  their  arm  to  its 
aid — If  I  could  admit  the  idea,  that  God  has  done  nothing  more 
than  decree,  in  general,  to  save  all  who  may  happen  to  believe ; 
without  any  determination,  or,  which  is  the  same  thing,  without 
any  certainty,  whether  fern,  or  many,  or  none,  would  be  thus 
blessed — If  I  could  suppose  that  God  foresaw  events  as  certainly 
future,  which  he  had  not  unchangeably  determined  to  accomplish, 
and  which,  therefore,  might  never  happen — If  I  could  suppose  that 
the  omniscient  Saviour  died  with  a  distinct  purpose  and  design  to 
3  H 


426  LETTER  VII. 

save  all  men  alike,  while  it  is  certain  that  all  will  not  be  saved 
— If  I  could  embrace  the  opinion  that  real  Christians  are  no  more 
indebted  to  grace  than  others,  having  received  no  more  than  they  5 
and  that  what  makes  them  to  differ  from  others  is,  not  the  sovereign 
goodness  of  God,  but  their  own  superior  wisdom,  strength,  or  merit  j 
in  other  words,  that  they  make  themselves  to  differ — If  T  could  ad- 
mit the  dreadful  thought,  that  the  Christian's  continuance  in  -his 
journey  heavenward,  depends,  not  on  the  immutable  love  and  pro- 
mise  of  his  God  ;  but  on  the  firmness  of  his  own  strength,  and  the 
stability  of  his  own  resolutions ;  and,  of  course,  that  he  who  is  the 
most  eminent  saint  to-day,  may  become  a  child  of  wrath,  and  an 
heir  of  perdition  to-morrow — In  short,  if  I  could  conceive  of  God 
as  working  without  any  providential  design,  and  willing  without 
any  certain  effect ;  desiring  to  save  man,  yet  unable  to  save  him, 
and  often  disappointed  in  his  expectations  ;  doing  as  much,  and 
designing  as  much,  for  those  that  perish,  as  for  those  that  are  saved ; 
but  after  all  baffled  in  his  wishes  concerning  them ;  hoping  and  de- 
siring great  things,  but  certain  of  nothing)  because  he  had  deter- 
mined  on  nothing — If  I  could  believe  these  things,  then,  indeed,  I 
should  renounce  Calvinism  ;  but  it  would  not  be  to  embrace  the 
system  of  Arminius.  Alas  !  it  would  be  impossible  to  stop  here. 
I  must  consider  the  character  of  God  as  dishonoured  ;  his  coun- 
sels as  degraded  to  a  chaos  of  wishes  and  endeavours  ;  his  promises 
as  the  fallible  and  uncertain  declarations  of  circumscribed  know- 
ledge and  endless  doubt ;  the  best  hopes  of  the  Christian  as  liable 
every  hour  to  be  blasted  5  and  the  whole  plan  of  salvation  as  no- 
thing better  than  a  gloomy  system  of  possibilities  and  peradven- 
tures ;  a  system  on  the  whole,  nearly,  if  not  quite,  as  likely  to 
land  the  believer  in  the  abyss  of  the  damned,  as  in  the  paradise  of 
God. 

But,  while  I  verily  believe  all  these  shocking  consequences 
to  flow,  unavoidably,  from  the  rejection  of  Calvinism ;  while 
the  Arminian  doctrine  appears  to  me  inconsistent  with  itself; 
dishonourable  to  God ;  and  comfortless  to  man  ;  yet  I  dare  not 
bring  a  railing  accusation  against  those  who  embrace  this  doc- 
trine ;  I  dare  not  impute  to  them  the  consequences  which  have 
been  stated.  They  neither  acknowledge  nor  perceive  them ;  and  if 


TESTIMONY   OP  CALVIN.  427 

they  did,  would,  no  doubt,  be  as  ready  to  abhor  them  as  ourselves. 
Nor  can  I  cease  to  cherish  the  animating  belief,  as  well  as  to 
offer  the  fervent  prayer,  that  thousands  who  now  reject,  in  words, 
the  doctrines  of  Calvinism,  and  entertain  invincible  prejudices 
against  the  system  which  is  generally  called  by  that  name  ;  may, 
notwithstanding,  for  ever  rejoice  in  these  doctrines,  and  bless 
God  for  them  in  a  more  enlightened,  and  a  more  happy  world. 


(   428  ) 


LETTER     VIII. 


TESTIMONY   OF  THE   SUCCESSORS  OF  THE  REFORMERS. 


CHRISTIAN  BRETHREN, 

BY  the  successors  of  the  reformers)  I  mean  those  great  and  good 
men  who  adorned  the  protestant  churches,  and  took  the  lead  in  the 
direction  of  their  affairs,  for  sixty  or  seventy  years  after  the  estab- 
lishment of  the  reformation.  Some  of  these  excellent  men  have 
been  quoted  by  our  episcopal  brethren  as  witnesses  in  their  favour ; 
especially  sqme  of  the  greatest  ornaments  of  the  Dutch  and  French 
churches.  Mr.  How  speaks  with  confidence  of  their  testimony, 
as  decisively  favourable  to  his  system  ;  and  Dr.  Bowden,  by  refer- 
ing,  with  approbation,  to  what  Dr.  Hobart  has  advanced  on  this 
part  of  the  controversy,  virtually  speaks  the  same  language. 

These  gentlemen,  in  giving  this  representation,  surely  count 
largely  on  the  ignorance  of  their  readers.  For  although,  if  one 
might  believe  Durell,  and  other  collectors  and  perverters  of  scraps 
from  the  vvriters  in  question,  they  sometimes  speak  like  believers 
in  the  apostolic  institution  of  prelacy  ;  yet  when  we  come  to  pe- 
ruse their  works,  and  especially  to  examine  the  passages  in  which 
they  formally  deliver  their  opinion  on  this  subject,  we  shall  find 
them,  almost  with  one  voice,  speaking  a  language  directly  opposite 
to  thcrt  which  is  ascribed  to  them. 

The  truth  is,  when  the  nonconformists  in  England,  after  the 
establishment  of  the  reformation,  began  to  revolt  from  the  episco- 
pal hierarchy,and  to  oppose  its  unscriptural  pretensions,  a  number 
of  the  bishop,  and  other  divines  of  the  established  church  in  that 


SUCCESSORS  OF  THE  REFORMERS.  439 

country,,  wrote  to  some  of  the  most  eminent  Presbyterian  divines 
of  the  foreign  reformed  churches,  soliciting  their  influence,  and  the 
authority  of  their  names,  to  quiet  the  minds  of  the  discontented. 
In  answer  to  solicitations  of  this  kind,  some  of  the  foreign  divines 
wrote  letters,  in  which  they  spoke  politely  and  respectfully  of  the 
church  of  England;  and  plainly  expressed  an  opinion  that  the 
nonconformists  ought  not  to  make  the  point  of  church  government 
a  cause  of  separation.  Still,  however,  these  men  were  Presbyte- 
rians in  principle  5  they  had  solemnly  subscribed  Confessions  of 
Faith,  which  declared  ministerial  parity  to  be  the  doctrine  of 
scripture,  and  the  practice  of  the  primitive  church  ;  and  when 
they  came  to  discuss  and  decide  the  question  concerning  prelacy, 
they  spoke  a  language  corresponding  with  their  creed.  And  I 
venture  to  add,  that  for  every  concession  in  favour  of  prelacy, 
which  my  opponents  produce  from  the  French,  Dutch,  Swiss,  and 
German  divines,  who  succeeded  to  the  reformers,  any  man  of 
reading  might  safely  engage  to  produce  ten,  more  pointed  conces- 
sions from  divines  of  the  church  of  England,  in  favour  of  Presby- 
terianism. 

It  would  be  perfectly  easy  to  fill  a  volume  with  quotations  in 
proof  of  what  has  been  advanced.  The  following  selection  will  be 
sufficient  to  answer  my  purpose.  It  will  be  clearly  seen,  that,  as 
the  great  body  of  the  reformers  never  offered  the  plea  of  necessity 
for  establishing  Presbyterian  parity  ;  but  steadily  appealed  to  the 
word  of  God,  and  primitive  usage  as  their  warrant ;  so  the  great 
and  excellent  men  who  came  after  them,  with  scarcely  any 
important  exception*,  took  the  same  ground,  and  made  the  same 
appeal. 

The  learned  Le  Blanc,  a  French  protestant  divine  of  great 
eminence  who  flourished  in  the  age  immediately  succeeding  that  of 
the  reformation,  says,  "  It  is  the  most  general  opinion  of  the 
"  English,  that  episcopacy  and  presbytery,  are  distinct  offices  ; 
"  but  the  rest  of  the  reformed,  as  also  those  of  the  Augustan 
"  Confession,  (the  Lutherans^}  do  unanimously  believe  that  there 
"  is  no  such  distinction  by  divine  right ;  and  that  the  superiority 
"  of  bishops  above  presbyters  is  only  of  ecclesiastical  right,  and 
"  has  been  introduced  into  the  church  by  degrees.  In  the  ages 
"  after  the  apostles,  a  custom  was  introduced,  that  one  of  the 
"  presbyters  should  be  chosen,  by  the  votes  of  the  whole  college, 


430 


LETTER  VIII. 


"  to  preside  over  the  other  presbyters  5  and  these,  after  a  while, 
"  assumed  to  themselves  the  name  of  bishops,  and,  by  degrees, 
"  gained  more  and  more  prerogatives,  and  brought  their  colleagues 
"  into  subjection  to  them,  until,  at  length,  the  matter  grew  up  to 
"  that  tyranny  which  now  obtains  in  the  church  of  Home.7'* 

The  very  learned  Chamier,  a  French  protestant  divine  of  great 
distinction,  contemporary  with  Beza,  has  been  sometimes  quoted 
by  Episcopalians,  as  making  concessions  in  favour  of  their  cause — 
The  following  quotation  will  show  his  opinion  of  ministerial  impa- 
rity. "  Prelacy  was  not,  by  those  who  first  began  it,  judged  to  be 
"  absolutely  better  than  presbytery ;  but  only  in  a  certain  respect. 
"  Upon  the  same  account  we  may  likewise  say,  that  equality 
"  among  pastors  is  better  in  a  certain  respect,  viz.  for  the  avoid- 
"  ing  of  the  tyranny  of  a  few  over  the  rest  of  their  brethren,  yea,  of 
"  one  over  all.  And  how  great  an  evil  tyranny  is,  and  how  wide 
"  a  gate  was  opened  to  it  from  the  ambition  for  this  presidency, 
"  experience  hath,  long  since,  more  than  sufficiently  shown."f  Tn 
another  part  of  the  same  work,  he  speaks  still  more  strongly — 
"  There  is  no  one  who  doubts  that  this  custom  of  giving  one  pres- 
"  byter  a  presidency  over  the  rest,  was  introduced  by  good  men, 
"  and  upon  a  good  design.  Would  to  God  that  it  had  not  rather 
"  arisen  from  carnal  prudence,  than  from  the  direction  of  the 
"  Spirit  f  Would  to  God  it  had  been  attended  with  as  happy  and 
"  prosperous  success,  as  it  was  introduced  with  applause."J  In  the 
next  chapter,  after  having  shown  at  large  how  episcopacy  intro- 
duced the  papacy,  he  closes  the  account  with  the  following  remark : 
"  Thus  human  wisdom,  if  once  it  decline  but  a  jot  from  the 
"  original  truth,  becomes  worse  and  worse."§ 

M.  Danau,  a  every  eminent  divine  of  the  French  protestant 
church,  also  contemporary  with  Beza9  treating  of  the  subject  under 
consideration,  thus  writes.  "  So  long  as  the  apostolic  constitution 
"  continued  in  the  church,  the  presbyters  that  laboured  in  the  word 
"  and  doctrine  differed  not  at  all  from  bishops.  But  after  that, 
"  by  the  ambition  of  those  who  presided  over  other  presbyters, 

*  Thes.  de  Grad.  Minist. 

f  Panstrat.  Tom.  n.  Lib.  9.  Cap.  14.  §  11. 

+  Panstrat.  Lib.  10.  Cap.  5.  §  22. 

§  Ibid.  Cap.  6.  §  18. 


SUCCESSORS  OF  THE  REFORMERS.  431 

"  and  took  to  themselves  the  name  of  bishops,  the  apostolic  form 
"  and  discipline  was  abolished  ;  then  the  bishops  began  to  be  dis- 
"  tinguished  even  from  those  presbyters  that  preached  the  word ; 
"  and  to  these  bishops,  contrary  to  God's  icord,  the  whole  dignity 
"  was  ascribed ;  scarcely  any  part  thereof  being  left  to  the  presby- 
"  ters ;  which  thing,  and  the  ambition  of  the  bishops,  did  in  time 
"  ruin  the  whole  church,  as  the  fact  of  the  papacy  itself  proclaims : 
"  And  so  the  apostolic  episcopacy  was  abolished,  and  a  human 
"  episcopacy  began,  from  which  sprang  the  satanic  episcopacy,  as 
"  it  now  is  in  the  papacy. — The  distinction  of  a  bishop  from  a 
"  preaching  presbyter  is  juris  pontrftcii,  of  pontifician  and  positive 
u  right,  being  brought  in  after  the  foundations  of  the  tyranny  of  the 
"  bishops  were  laid  ;  but  is  not  of  divine  right.'7* 

The  celebrated  Bochart,  a  French  protestant  divine  of  great 
learning  and  authority,  lias  often  been  quoted  by  episcopal  writers, 
as  having  expressed  himself  in  favour  of  prelacy.  The  following 
declarations  from  his  pen  are  found  in  a  letter  which  he  wrote  to 
Dr.  Morley,  an  English  bishop,  who  had  requested  his  opinion  on 
the  subject.  "  In  the  office  of  Overseer  or  bishop,  there  are  three 
"  things  which  we  must  not  mix  together, —  the  ^srf/Hursgiov,  i.  e. 
"  the  eldership  or  pastoral  office,  which  scripture  ascribes  to  the 
"  overseer  or  bishop  ; — the  utfsgo^Tjv,  i.  e.  the  pre-eminence  above 
"  other  pastors,  which  the  ancient  church  added  to  the  bishops ; 
"  and  the  lordship  over  God's  heritage  which  some  in  these  last 
"  times  have  strenuously  advocated.  The  frst  of  these  is  of 
"  divine  authority,  the  second  of  ecclesiastical  authority  ;  and  the 
"  third  of  neither,  but  a  mere  abuse.  The  Jirst,  the  church  cannot 
"  dispense  with  ;  the  second  may  be  borne  ;  but  the  third  ought 
"  at  once  to  be  rooted  out." — In  answer  to  Bishop  Morley's  ques- 
tion, whether  it  was  better  for  the  English  church  to  be  governed 
"  by  presbyters  than  by  bishops,  Bochart  replies — "  The  episco- 
u  pal  government  was  not  of  divine,  but  ecclesiastical  appoint- 
"  ment  ;  but  since  the  English  church  has  hitherto  been  governed 
"  by  bishops,  that  form  of  government  may  and  can  with  propriety 
"  be  borne.  For  every  where  men  live ;  but  men  cannot  live  every 
"  where  in  the  same  way.  As  in  political  society  some  prefer 
"  being  governed  by  one,  and  others  by  many  ;  so  it  is  in  ecclesi- 

*  DAN^BI.  Conirov.  5.  Lib.  i.  Cap.  14. 


432  LETTER  VIII. 

"  astical  society.  In  England  they  are  so  accustomed  to  episcopal 
"  government,  that  though  of  no  divine  or  apostolic  authority,  it 
"  cannot  be  dispensed  with.  In  other  places,  government  by  over- 
"  seers,  or  ministers,  or  presbyters,  is  preferred.  But  in  churches 
"  which  have  never  been  governed  by  bishops,  they  may  be  dis- 
u  pensed  with,  even  though  the  civil  government  be  monarchical ; 
"  since  this  new  institution  of  human  origin,  sprung  merely  from 
"  pride  and  ambition,  and  has  never  been  of  the  least  advantage  to 
"  the  church,  which  in  every  change  of  things  ought  always  to  be 
"  contemplated.  And  since  it  will  neither  diminish  nor  increase 
"  the  glory  of  a  prince,  whether  he  receive  his  own  crown  from  a 
"  bishop  or  pastor." — In  another  part  of  the  same  letter,  he  says 
— "  If  you  ask  for  the  opinions  of  the  ancients,  I  entirely  agree 
"  with  Jerome,  that,  in  the  apostolic  times,  there  was  no  difference 
"  between  bishops  and  presbyters,  or  elders,  and  that  the  church 
"  was  governed  by  a  common  council  of  presbyters."* 

In  this  manner  did  Bochart,  unquestionably  one  of  the  most 
learned  men  of  his  day,  speak  on  the  subject  under  consideration, 
when  his  opinion  was  formally  requested.  And  when  it  is  consider- 
ed that  he  communicated  this  opinion  to  a  respectable  prelate ; 
and,  of  course,  had  every  inducement  to  speak  as  favourably  of  the 
English  hierarchy  as  possible,  the  quotation  carries  with  it  peculiar 
weight. 

But  none  of  the  writers  of  the  reformed  churches  have  been  quo- 
ted, by  our  episcopal  brethren,  with  more  confidence,  as  a  witness 
in  their  favour,  than  the  very  learned  and  celebrated  M.  Claude. 
The  following  quotation  leaves  no  room  to  doubt  what  were  his 
real  sentiments  on  the  subject  in  dispute. 

"  The  apostles  have  left  no  successors  in  their  office,  which  was 
"  unique.  It  was  an  extraordinary  office  ;  and  they  continue  to 
"  teach  and  instruct  the  church  in  all  ages,  by  their  writings.  The 
"  apostles  first  collected  churches  by  their  preaching.  These 
"  churches,  when  assembled,  with  their  advice  and  assistance,  ap- 
"  pointed  their  own  presbyters  or  elders,  overseers  or  bishops  ;  and 
"  they  received  the  symbol,  or  ceremonial  investiture  of  office,  by 
"  the  laying  on  of  the  hands  of  the  presbytery  or  eldership  :  The 

f  See  Outhof's  Ferklaringe  over  denbrief  aan  Titus,  p.  294.  §  210.  and 
p.  297,  298.  §  620. 


SUCCESSORS  OP  THE  REFORMERS.  433 

"  office  itself  being  conferred,  and  the  vocation  made  by  the  elec- 
"  tion  of  the  church.  And  so  scrupulous  were  the  apostles  in  ap- 
«  pointing  this  order  of  things,  which  was  to  remain  in  the  church, 
"  that,  even  in  their  presence,  the  ordination  rite  was  performed 
"  by  the  laying  on  of  the  hands  of  the  presbytery."* 

Again,  he  says,  "  As   to  ordinations  of  this  kind,  (by  presby- 
"  ters,)  can  the  author  be  ignorant  that  the  distinction  of  bishop 
"  and  presbyter,  as  expressive  of  different  offices,  is  a  distinction 
"  which  not  only  cannot  be  proved  by  the  scriptures;  but  which 
"  contradicts  their  express  language,  in  which  it  is  plain  that  bi- 
"  shop  and  presbyter  are  only  different  names  expressive  of  the 
61  same  office  ?  Can  this  author  be  ignorant  of  the  opinion  of  St. 
"  Jerome,  of  Hilary,  the  deacon,  and,  after  them,  of  Hincmar, 
t(  which  they  have  so  explicitly  given,  concerning  the  unity  or 
"  identity  of  the  office  of  bishop  and  presbyter,  in  the  earliest  ages 
"  of  the   church;    and  concerning  the  origin  of  that  distinction 
"  which  afterwards  took  place  between  them  ?  Can  he  be  ignorant 
"  that  St.  Augustine  himself,  writing  to  St.  Jerome,  refers,  that 
"  distinction,  not  to  the  primitive  institution  of  the  ministry,  but 
"  merely  to  an  ecclesiastical  custom,  which  had  since  grown  up  ? 
"  Can  he  be.ignorant  that  some  of  the  fathers  have  taught  us,  that 
"  the  ordination  of  a  presbyter  and  a  bishop  are  strictly  one  and 
"  the  same,  and  not  different  kinds  of  acts,  sufficiently  expressing 
"  to  us  the  identity  of  the  offices  ?  And  as  to  the  right  of  ordain- 
"  ing,  can  this  author  deny  that  St.  Paul  speaks  of  the  laying  on 
"  of  the  hands  of  the  presbytery  ?  Can  he  deny  that  presbyters 
"  anciently  ordained  equally  with  bishops  ?"f      Further,  "  The 
"  right  of  ordination,  therefore,  is  one  that  naturally  belongs  to 
"  presbyters.     And  since  they  have  been  deprived  of  it  by  rules 
"  and  constitutions  which   are  merely  of  human  authority,  the 
"  right  still  remains  essentially  attached  to  their  office,  and  they 
"  may  justly  reclaim  it,  whenever  the  state  of  the  church  will  per- 
"  mit.     And  that  I  may  declare  my  opinion  with  freedom,  it  ap- 
"  pears  to  me  that  the  haughty  and  insolent  opinion,  which  main- 
"  tains  the  absolute  necessity  of  episcopal  ordinations,  and,  with- 


*  Historical  Defence  of  the  Reformation,  4to.  ed.  1673.  P.  iv.  C.  3.  p.  342. 
f  Histor.  Def,  p.  372,  373. 
3   I 


434  LETTER  VIII. 

"  out  them,  annihilates  the  church,  the  ministry,  and  the  sacraments, 
'»  however  pure  the  faith,  the  doctrine,  and  the  piety  of  the  church 
"  may  be  ; — thus  making  religion  depend  on  a  form,  and  that  form 
11  of  mere  human  invention; — I  repeat  it,  it  appears  to  me  that  this 
"  insolent  opinion  carries  on  it  the  character  of  a  shameful corrup- 
"  tion  ;  it  bears  the  mark  ofprofound  hypocrisy,  of  a  pure  pha- 
<{  risaism,  which  strains  at  a  gnat,  while  it  swallows  a  camel.  I 
"  cannot  help  having,  at  least,  a  deep  contempt  for  such  opinions, 
11  and  compassion  for  those  who  are  thus  obstinate  and  headstrong 
"  in  maintaining  them."* 

In  1680,  when  Owen,  Baxter,  Alsop,  Clarkson,  Howe,  and 
other  eminent  English  Presbyterians,  had  written  largely  and  ably 
in  defence  of  their  principles ;  the  episcopal  writers,  feeling  them- 
selves deficient  in  argument,  made  an  attempt  to  support  their 
cause,  by  soliciting  some  of  the  foreign  Presbyterians  to  speak  in 
their  favour.  For  this  purpose  the  bishop  of  London,  in  that  year, 
wrote  to  M.  Claude,  requesting  him  to  give  his  opinion  of  English 
Presbyterianism.  Claude  returned  a  complaisant  answer,  express- 
ing great  respect  for  the  English  church;  gently  blaming  the 
nonconformists  for  separating  from  it  merely  on  a  question  of 
government ;  and  explicitly  conceding  that  salvation  might  be 
obtained,  and  every  spiritual  advantage  received  under  the  episco- 
pal regimen.  Messieurs  IS  Angle  and  Le  Moyne,  being  addressed 
in  the  same  manner,  wrote  in  a  similar  strain.  These  letters  Bishop 
Stillingjleet  subjoined  to  a  work  of  his  own,  on  The  Unreasona- 
bleness of  Separation,  and  pompously  published  as  suffrages  for 
episcopacy;  and  ever  since,  they  have  been  confidently  quoted  for 
the  same  purpose. 

M.  Claude  complained  that  his  letter  was  published  without  his 
permission ;  that  a  construction  was  put  upon  it,  which  he  never 
intended;  and  that  a  use  was  made  of  it  contrary  to  his  wishes. 
These  complaints  were  contained  in  letters  addressed  to  the  bishop 
of  London,  and  to  a  lady  of  his  acquaintance,  in  the  year  1681  ; 
which,  however,  the  Episcopalians  of  England  took  care  never 
to  publish;  and  which  were  never  given  to  the  world  until  after 
the  death  of  Claude,  when  they  were  brought  to  light  by  his 

*  Histor.  Def.  p.  374. 


SUCCESSORS  OF  THE  REFORMERS.  435 

son.  The  following  extracts  from  these  letters  will  be  sufficient 
to  place  the  sentiments  of  the  excellent  writer  in  a  just  point  of 
light. 

"  I  have  received  the  letter  which  you  were  pleased  to  send 
"  me  from  the  bishop  of  London,  with  the  book  which  accompa- 
"  nied  it.  I  shall  have  the  honour  to  reply  to  the  bishop,  and  to 
"  thank  him  for  the  present  which  he  hath  sent  me.  Neverthe- 
"  less,  Madam,  as  I  learn  from  different  places,  that  many  persons 
"  have  not  entirely  understood  my  sentiments  and  expressions, 
"  touching  the  present  state  of  the  English  church,  I  have  believed 
"  that  it  would  not  be  improper  to  explain  myself  more  particu- 
"  larly  to  you,  and  to  let  you  know  the  innocence  of  my  thoughts 
"  and  intentions.  First:  I  can  conscientiously  declare  that  when 
"  I  wrote  on  the  subject  to  the  bishop  of  Lojidon,  it  was  not  with 
"  the  intention  that  my  letter  should  be  printed,  or  rendered  pub- 
"  lie $  and  that  I  have  even  been  surprised  and  astonished  to  see 
"  it  as  well  in  French  as  in  English,  at  the  end  of  the  book  which 
"  you  have  sent  me,  with  two  others,  one  of  Mons.  M.  and  another 
"  of  Mons.  A. — But  besides  this,  be  assured,  Madam,  that,  in 
"  what  I  have  written,  I  have  had  two  things  only  in  view ;  viz. 
Ct  to  justify  us  from  a  calumny  which  some  persons  imputed  to  us, 
"  of  believing  that  salvation  could  not  be  obtained  under  the 
et  episcopal  government;  and  of  aiding  as  much  as  my  weakness 
"  was  capable  of,  a  good  and  holy  union  of  the  two  parties. 
"  With  respect  to  the  fast,  I  believe  I  have,  with  sufficient  just- 
"  ness,  explained  the  sentiments  of  all  the  protestants  of  this  king- 
"  dom,  and  in  particular,  of  all  those  who  are  honoured  with  our 
"  character,  (the  clergy.)  And  I  am  even  assured  that  the 
"  English  Presbyterians  would  not  go  so  far  as  to  contest  the 
61  possibility  of  salvation  under  the  ministry  of  bishops.  They 
"  have,  for  that,  too  much  light,  wisdom,  and  Christian  charity. 
"  With  respect  to  the  second,  I  have  endeavoured  to  keep  all  the 
"  measures  which  ought  to  be  kept  in  so  great  and  important  an 
"  affair  as  this.  I  have  explained  myself  only  in  the  form  of  a 
"  wish,  and  in  showing  what  I  desired  that  the  Presbyterians 
"  might  attentively  consider.  I  'have  not  been  silent  with  regard 
"  to  the  Episcopalians.  I  have  condemned  the  excesses  into  which 
£l  some  of  both  parties  have  gone;  and  I  have  shown,  as  far  as 


436  LETTER  VT1I. 

"  my  little  wisdom  enabled  me,  the  reasons  which  should  induce 
"  both  to  a  just  and  reasonable  accommodation."* 

In  a  letter  to  the  bishop  of  London,  of  the  same  date,  M.  Claude 
writes  thus.  "  The  Nonconformists  complain,  that  the  Episcopa- 
"  lians  are  as  ardent  in  pursuing  them  with  the  penalties  of  the 
"  laws,  as  if  they  were  adversaries  and  enemies.  They  complain, 
"  that  your  government  is  no  less  arbitrary  and  despotic  with 
"  regard  to  dissenting  ministers,  than  that  of  the  bishops  of  the 
"  Roman  communion.  They  complain,  that  you  will  receive  no 
"  one  to  the  ministry,  till  he  acknowledges,  on  oath,  that  Episco- 
"  pacy  is  of  divine  right,  which  is  a  hell  (Gehenne)  to  the  con- 
"  science.  They  complain,  that,  whilst  you  do  not  re-ordain  the 
"  Roman  Catholic  priests  who  come  to  you,  you  do  re-ordain  mi- 
"  nisters,  who  come  to  you  from  beyond  the  seas,  in  the  churches 
"  of  France,  Holland)  &c.  They  complain,  that  the  bishops  have 
"  a  rigid  attachment  to  many  ceremonies  which  are  offensive, 
tf  and  for  which,  nevertheless,  they  combat  tanquam  pro  arts  et 
"  focis.  In  the  name  of  God,  my  Lord,  labour  to  remove  these 
"  grounds  of  complaint,  if  there  is  any  truth  in  them,  and  if  there 
"  is  not,  to  give  information  of  the  real  state  of  the  case.  And  let 
"  all  Europe  know,  that  there  is  nothing  which  the  glory  of  God, 
"  and  the  love  of  the  church  can  demand  of  you,  that  you  are  not 
"  ready  to  grant."t 

It  is  evident,  then,  from  all  the  documents  which  have  come  to 
light  on  this  subject,  that  the  English  bishops,  in  order  to  draw 
from  the  foreign  Presbyterians  something  in  their  favour,  sent  to 
them  a  disingenuous  statement  of  the  case  ;,that,  under  this  decep- 
tion, their  answers  were  written  ;  ana1  that,  as  soon  as  they  under- 
stood the  real  state  of  things,  they  complained  of  having  been 
treated  with  'duplicity,  and  declared  opinions  very  different  from 
those  which  had  been  imputed  to  them.  That  this  was  the  case 
with  M.  Claude,  is  certain  ;  and  that  it  was  also  the  case  with  his 
brethren,  who  shared  in  the  imposition  which  was  practised  upon 
him,  I  have  no  doubt  would  appear,  if  we  had  access  to  their  other 
writings. 

*  Les  Oeuvres  Posthumes,  de  M.  Claude.  Tom.  v.  Let.  38. 
f  Les  Oeuvres  Posthumes,  de  M.  Claude.  Tom.  v.  Let.  39. 


SUCCESSORS  OF  THE  REFORMERS.  437 

The  learned  Daille  is  also  frequently  quoted  by  zealous  Episco- 
palians, as  having  made  important  concessions  in  favour  of  prela- 
cy. I  cannot  undertake  to  say  that  no  incautious  or  doubtful  sen- 
tence ever  escaped  from  the  pen  of  this  illustrious  protestant,  on 
the  subject  of  episcopacy ;  though  I  have  never  seen  any  which 
warrants  the  construction  of  our  episcopal  brethren  ;  but  I  may  ven- 
ture to  assert,  that  no  candid  man  can  peruse  his  Sermons  on  the 
First  Epistle  to  Timothy,  without  being  convinced  that  he  was  a 
decided  and  warm  advocate  of  ministerial  parity,  as  having  ob- 
tained in  the  apostolic  and  primitive  church.  To  prove  this,  the 
folio  wing  extracts  are  sufficient. 

"  Here  the  hierarchs,  having  their  imagination  full  of  their  grand 
"  prelatures,  of  their  bishoprics,  their  archbishoprics,  and  their  pri- 
"  macies,  do  not  fail  to  dream  of  one  in  these  words  of  the  apostle. 
u  That  he  besought  Timothy  to  abide  still  at  Ephesus,  signifies,  if 
"  you  believe  them,  that  he  made  Timothy  bishop  of  the  Church 
"  of  Ephesus  ;  and  not  only  that,  but  even  metropolitan,  or  arch- 
"  bishop  of  the  province  ;  and  even  primate  of  all  Asia.  You  see 
c<  how  ingenious  is  the  passion  for  the  crosier  and  the  mitre,  being 
"  able,  in  so  few  and  simple  words,  to  detect  such  great  mysteries  ! 
"  For  where  is  the  man,  who,  in  the  use  of  his  natural  understand- 
u  ing,  without  being  heated  by  a  previous  attachment,  could  ever 
"  have  found  so  many  mitres — that  of  a  bishop,  that  of  an  archbi- 
"  shop,  and  that  of  a  primate,  in  these  two  words,  Paul  besought 
"  Timothy  to  abide  still  at  Ephesus  ?  Who,  without  the  help  of 
"  some  extraordinary  passion,  could  ever  have  made  so  charming 
"  and  so  rare  a  discovery  ?  And  imagine  that  to  beseech  a  man  to 
"  stay  in  a  city,  means,  to  establish  him  bishop  of  that  city,  arch- 
"  bishop  of  the  province,  and  primate  of  all  the  country  ?  In  very 
"  deed,  the  cause  of  these  gentlemen  of  the  hierarchy  must  be  re- 
"  duced  to  an  evil  plight,  since  they  are  constrained  to  resort  to 
"  such  pitiful  proofs.7'* 

Again,  he  says — "  St.  Paul,  and  all  the  company  of  pastors, 
"  laid  hands  on  Timothy  at  his  ordination.  St.  Paul  as  president, 
"  and  the  rest  as  colleagues,  according  to  the  practice  which  obtains 
"  among  us,  where  it  is  usual  for  the  person  appointed  by  the  synod 
"  first  to  lay  hands  on  him  that  is  ordained  ;  all  the  rest  of  the  pas- 

*  See  hisjfrrf  Sermon  on  the  Epistle. 


438  LETTER  VTII. 

"  tors  present,  afterwards  joining  with  him  in  laying  on  their  hands 
"  on  the  same  person,"* 

The  language  of  those  divines  of  the  Lutheran  Church,  who  suc- 
ceeded the  reformers,  was  not  less  explicit  and  decisive  than  that 
of  the  other  protestant  divines  of  Europe.  The  following  specimen 
of  their  opinions,  is  all  that  I  have  room  to  admit. 

The  learned  Frederick  Balduin,  professor  of  divinity  in  the 
University  of  Wittemberg,  and  a  superintendent  in  the  Lutheran 
church,  speaking  on  the  subject  in  question,  expresses  himself  in 
the  following  manner.  "  Hence  the  papists  commonly  cry  out 
"  against  the  pastors  of  our  churches,  as  if  they  were  not  legitimate- 
"  ly  ordained,  because  they  were  not  ordained  by  bishops  ;  and 
"  they  assert  that  neither  Luther,  nor  any  other  orthodox  minis- 
"  ters,  had  the  power  of  conferring  orders,  because  they  were  not 
"  bishops,  but  only  presbyters.  But  our  judgment  is  that  bishops 
"  have  their  pre-eminence  in  the  church,  not  by  divine  right,  but 
"  by  a  voluntary  arrangement  of  the  church,  which  thought  pro- 
"  per  to  direct  that,  for  the  sake  of  order,  a  bishop,  or  he  who  was 
"  first  in  the  ministry,  should  ordain  in  the  church  ;  the  whole  pres- 
"  bytery  being  present,  and  laying  on  hands  at  the  same  time  ;  but 
"so,  however,  that  if  the  bishop  or  first  minister,  should  happen 
"  to  be  absent,  a  presbyter  might  perform  the  same  duty  in  his 
«  stead,  that  nothing  may  be  neglected  in  the  church.  For  a  bishop 
"  is  nothing  more  than  \hejirst  presbyter,  as  St.  Augustine  tells 
"  us,  QuoEst.  101.  ex  utroque  -Testam.  Accordingly,  '  in  Egypt9 
"  presbyters  ordain,  if  a  bishop  be  not  present,'  as  Ambrose  writes, 
«  in  his  commentary  on  Ephesiansiv.  There  is  nothing,  there- 
"  fore,  wanting  to  the  validity  of  our  ministry  ;  for  with  respect  to 
"  the  difference  which  the  papists  make  between  a  bishop  and  a 
«f  presbyter,  as  if  the  former  only  had  the  power  of  ordaining,  the 
"  scriptures  do  not  recognize  it.  The  scriptures  ascribe  the  power 
"  of  ordination  to  the  whole  presbytery,  not  to  a  single  bishop;  as 
"  the  apostle  writes  to  Timothy — Neglect  not  the  gift  which  is  in 
l(  thee,  which  was  given  thee  by  prophecy,  zcith  the  laying  on  of 
"  the  hands  of  the  presbytery.  And  the  Apostle  Paul,  though  not 
K  inferior  to  a  bishop  in  dignity,  accepted  ordination  from  the  pres- 

*  See  his  3 1st  Sermon  on  the  Epistle. 


SUCCESSORS  OF  THE  REFORMERS.  439 

"  bytery  of  Antioch,  not  from  a  single  bishop ;  as  we  find  related, 
"  Ads  xii.  2.  From  all  which  considerations  we  plainly  infer  that 
"  the  legitimacy  of  the  ordinations  in  the  Lutheran  churches, 
"  whether  performed  by  Luther  or  by  other  Lutheran  ministers, 
"  cannot  by  any  means  be  called  in  question.'7* 

Another  respectable  authority  on  this  subject,  is  the  learned 
C.  Dieterich,  a  doctor  of  divinity,  and  also  a  superintendent  in  the 
Lutheran  church  of  Germany,  who  lived  in  the  age  immediately 
following  that  of  Luther^.     He  declares,  that  "  the  ordination  of 
"  ministers  in  the  Lutheran  church  is  by  presbyters,  and  that  this 
'*  method  of  ordination  has  the  divine  warrant."     And  a  little 
after,  he  remarks :     "  They  (the  Papists}  rail  against  us,  that  we 
"  are  not  able  to  produce  a  regular  commission,  because  we  are 
"  neither  called,  nor  ordained  by  bishops,  having  papal  jurisdic- 
"  tion,  nor  have  any  legitimate  claim  to  the  apostolic  succession. 
"  But  let  them  rail.  This  is  the  old  Popish  tune  to  which  our  ears 
"  have  become  accustomed.     Neither  bishops  alone,  nor  the  Pope 
"  alone,  have   the  power  of  ordaining  ministers.     The   blessed 
"  apostles,  without  any  parade  of  ceremony,  were  in  the  habit  of 
"  introducing  candidates  into  the  sacred  office  by  fasting,  prayer, 
"  and  the  imposition  of  the  hands  of  ministers.     We  imitate  this 
"  apostolic  simplicity.     And  where   men  are  called,  examined, 
"  ordained,  and  placed  in  the  church  by  prayer,  and  the  laying  on 
"of  the  hands  of  the  presbytery,  the  ministry  of  the  word  and 
"  sacraments,  the  government  of  the  flock,  &c.  are  committed  to 
"  them.  Which  kind  of  ordination,  though  not  enjoined  by  absolute 
"  divine  command,  we  nevertheless  judge  proper  to  be  retained, 
"  partly  because  it  is  conformable  with  the  practice  of  theprimi- 
"  tive  church  ;  and  partly,  on  account  of  its  salutary  effects.''! 
Again,  he  remarks — "  Scripture  knows  nothing  of  any  difference 
"  between  presbyter  and  bishop.     Those  who  are  in  .one  place 
"  called  presbyters  are,  a  little  after,  called  bishops ;  as  in  Acts 
"  xx.  17.  28.     St.  Jerome  shows  the  same  thing  in  his  Commen- 
"  tary  on  the  epistle  to  Titus.     With  Jerome  agreed  Chrysostom} 
"  Theodoret,  Primasius,  Theophylact,  and  other  fathers.     Even 

*  Tractatus  Lucukntusde  Casibus  Conscientiae.  Lib.  4.  Cap.  6.  Cas.  4. 
4to.  1628. 

f  Analysis  Evangeliorum.  Par.  n.  47 — 49. 


440  LETTER  VIII. 

"  in  the  canon  law  the  same  doctrine  is  contained.  For  it  is  there 
u  asserted,  that, '  formerly  a  presbyter  and  a  bishop  were  the  same 
"  thing.'  Even  Bellarmine  does  not  deny  this,  in  his  work  De 
"  Clericis,  Lib.  i.  Cap.  12.  for  he  says  that  the  episcopal  pre- 
"  eminence  of  one  was  brought  in  by  the  church,  as  a  remedy  for 
"  schism  ;  and  quotes  Jerome  as  his  authority.  How,  then,  can  it 
"  be  of  divine  right  ?"* 

Professor  Hulsemann,  a  Lutheran  divine  of  great  eminence,  and 
who  also  lived  in  the  age  immediately  following  that  of  Luther, 
in  a  commentary  on  the  Augustan  Confession  expresses  himself 
in  the  following  manner.  "  The  bishops  succeeded  in  the  place 
"  of  the  apostles;  not,  however,  as  to  that  which  formally  consti- 
"  tuted  them  apostles,  Gal.  i.  1.  2  Cor.  xii.'ll,  12  ;  but  as  to 
"  that  which  they  hold  in  common  with  presbyters  ;  for,  by  divine 
"  right,  they  are  in  no  respect  superior  to  presbyters"^ 

Gerhard,  a  Lutheran  divine  of  great  eminence  and  authority, 
who  lived  a  little  after  the  time  of  Luther,  though  he  admits  that 
a  moderate  kind  of  episcopacy  amounting  to  nothing  more  than  a 
standing  moderator  ship,  is  lawful,  and,  in  some  cases,  expedient, 
yet  he  represents  it  as  a  mere  human  institution  ;  and  explicitly 
speaks  of  the  doctrine  that  bishops  are,  by  divine  right,  an  order 
superior  to  presbyters,  and  alone  possess  the  power  of  ordination, 
as  a  Popish  error -.J 

The  works  of  few  Lutheran  divines  hold  a  higher  place  in  the 
esteem  of  the  churches  of  that  denomination,  than  those  of  Bud- 
dceus,  the  celebrated  professor  of  divinity  at  Leipsic.  This  learned 
theologian  makes  the  following  statement,  with  respect  to  the  go- 
vernment of  his  own  church.  "  The  judgment  of  the  divines  of 
K  our  church,  is  this,  that,  among  those  who  preside  in  the  church, 
"  there  is,  by  divine  right,  no  difference,  on  the  score  of  dignity, 
"  so  that  presbyters  and  bishops  are  equal:  But,  notwithstanding 
u  that,  there  is  no  solid  objection  against  introducing  a  certain 
"  inequality,  on  the  ground  of  human  expediency,  and  giving  to 
"  one  of  the  ministers  of  the  word  a  sort  of  inspection  over  the 

*  Analysis  Evangeliorum.  Par.  n.  61,  62. 

f  Manuale  Confessionis  Jlugustanae  vindicans  earn,  &c.  Autore  Johanne 
Hulsemanno.  p.  519,  520. 

*  Loci  Communes,  Tom.  6.  Col.  260,  261. 


SUCCESSORS  OF  THE  REFORMERS.  441 

"  rest,  and,  at  the  s4*ie  time,  a  certain  pre-eminence  of  character. 
«  Neither  do  we  deny  that  this  was  the  case  in  the  ancient  church ; 
"  although  the  abuse  which  arose  from  this,  in  which  the  bishops 
"  usurped  to  themselves  a  tyrannical  domination,  \vegreatly  detest. 
"  Nor  can  we  be  charged  with  having  abolished  the  office  of  bishop 
"  in  our  church,  as  Henry  Dodwell,  and  others  have  reproachfully 
"  alleged  against  us  5*  sjnce  it  is  plain  from  fact,  that  we  have 
"  only  restored  the  office  to  those  just  limits,  and  to  that  true  char- 
"  acter  which  it  held  in  the  ancient  church.     For  we  have  not 
"  only  given  to  ministers  of  the  word  that  power  which  presby- 
_"  ters  enjoyed  in  the  apostolic  church  ;t  but  to  certain  of  them 
"  there  is  allowed  a   kind  of  pre-eminence  or  inspection   over 
"  others.     These  are  called  superintendents,   or  presidents,  or 
tf  inspectors,  and,  in  some  places,  they  are  styled  bishops."^  The 
same  writer,  in  the  very  section  from  which  the  above  extract  is 
taken,  more  than  once  remarks,  that  the  Papists,  and  the  English 
Episcopalians  are  equally  in  error  in  asserting  the  divine  right  of 
prelacy.  He  speaks  of  his  having  written  two  works  on  the  Origin 
and  Power  of  Bishops,  which  were  particularly  intended  to  oppose 
the  notions  of  certain  high-churchmen  in  England.     He  declares, 
that  it  is  notorious  and  unquestionable  that  Jerome  contended 
zealously  for  the  primitive  equality  of  bishops  and  presbyters.  And 
he  also  asserts,  that  the  office  of  deacon  was,  in  process  of  time, 
perverted  from  that  guardianship  of  the  poor  which  it  was  ex- 
pressly intended  to  subserve  by  the  apostles. 

*  The  learned  Dodwett  understood  the  government  of  the  Lutheran 
church  much  better  than  Dr.  Bowden  and  Mr.  How.     He  thought  that, 
on  the  principles  of  the  jure  divino  prelatists,  the  Lutherans  had  no 
bishops  among  them;  and  the  learned  Buddxus  confesses  the  fact;  though 
he  contends  that  they  have  such  bishops  as  the  ancient  church  had. 

•j-  Here  Buddseus  makes  a  clear  distinction  between  the  ancient  church, 
and  the  apostolic  church.  By  the  former,  he  elsewhere  explains  himself 
to  mean  that  which  existed  soon  after  the  apostolic  age;  by  the  latter  he 
means  that  ecclesiastical  order  which  the  apostles  themselves  established. 
In  the  former  he  admits  that  a  moderate  kind  of  episcopacy  was  intro- 
duced by  human  wisdom,  and  this  he  says  the  Lutherans  imitate.  In 
the  latter,  he  repeatedly  and  explicitly  declares  that  ministerial  parity 
prevailed.  , 

*  /.  F.  Buddsd  Isagoge  Historico-Theologica,  &c.  Lib.  H.  Cap.  v.  §  11. 

3  K 


442  LETTER  VIII. 

The  same  divine,  in  his  able  and  learned  Jfyeface  to  Bingham's 
Origines  Ecclesiasticce,  adverting  to  Binghcun's  high-church  opi- 
nions, makes  the  following  declarations.  "  But  when  he  asserts, 
"  further  on,  that  the  order  of  bishops  was  instituted  ly  the  apos- 
"  ties,  he  will  have  very  few  to  join  him,  excepting  the  Roman 
u  Catholics,  and  the  high-toned  Episcopalians  in  England.  For 
"  there  is  not  only  no  vestige  of  such  a  thing  to  be  found  in  scrip- 
"  ture  ;  but  the  very  contrary  is  plainly  intimated  there,  viz.  that 
"  presbyters  and  bishops  were  the  same  thing  in  the  apostolic  age." 
He  then  goes  on  to  show  that  the  fathers  teach  nothing  contrary 
to  this ;  and  by  a  number  of  quotations  from  Ignatius,  Clemens 
Alexandrinus,  Irenczus,  and  Tertullian,  evidently  establishes  his 
point. 

I  have  reserved  for  separate  consideration,  the  testimony  of  the 
Synod  ofDort ;  not  only  because  the  proceedings  of  that  venera- 
ble assembly  hold  a  most  important  station  in  the  history  of  the 
Christian  Church  ;  but  also  because  they  have  been  misunderstood 
and  misrepresented  by  my  opponents,  in  a  manner  so  extraordina- 
ry as  to  demand  particular  notice.  Mr.  How,  especially,  has 
allowed  himself  to  speak  on  this  subject  in  a  way  for  which  I 
really  feel  at  a  loss  to  form  an  adequate  apology.  To  suppose  that 
it  has  never  fallen  in  his  way  to  obtain  correct  information  respect- 
ing it,  is  the  most  favourable  construction  which  the  case  seems  to 
admit. 

It  is  generally  known,  that  the  synod  of  Dort  sat  in  the  jears 
1618  and  1619  ;  that  it  was  convened  for  the  purpose  of  consider- 
ing and  deciding  on  the  heresy  of  Arminius;  that  it  was  composed 
of  delegates  from  the  greater  part  of  the  protestant  churches  of 
Europe  ;  that  King  James  I.  sent  five  delegates  from  the  church 
of  England,  to  deliberate  and  vote  in  the  synod ;  and  that  of  these 
delegates  one  was,  at  that  time,  a  bishop,  and  two  others  were,  soon 
after  their  return  home,  raised  to  that  dignity.  It  is  also  well 
known,  that  the  synod,  after  long  and  solemn  deliberation,  formally 
condemned  the  doctrines  of  Arminius,  and  adopted  those  of  Cal- 
vin $  and  that  the  English  delegates  concurred,  with  one  voice, 
both  in  the  condemnation  of  the  former,  and  in  the  adoption  of  the 
latter. 

In  speaking  of  the  proceedings  of  this  synod,  in  my  seventh 


SUCCESSORS'  OF  THE  REFORMERS.        443 

letter,  having  no  temptation  to  conceal  or  disguise  the  truth,  I  was 
careful  to  state,  that  "  Bishop  Carleton,  and  the  other  English 
delegates  expressed  their  opinion^in  the  synod,  VERY  FULLY  in 
favour  of  the  episcopal  form  of  government."  This,  however, 
does  not  satisfy  Mr.  How.  He  professes  to  quote  my  sentence, 
but  adroitly  leaves  out  the  words  "  very  fully,"  and  then  exclaims 
— "  See,  Sir,  how  you  mis-state  ?  They  declared  the  divine  right 
"  of  episcopacy.  Is  there  no  difference  between  the  two  modes 
"  of  expression  ?  You  seem  to  have  been  aware  of  the  necessity  of 
"  concealing  the  true  state  of  the  case  from  your  readers ;  thus 
tc  entitling  yourself  to  the  credit,  at  least,  of  caution  as  an  advocate, 
"  whatever  may  be  thought  of  your  candour  as  a  man."  Passing 
by  the  indelicate  suggestion  which  this  passage  contains,  as  beneath 
a  reply,  I  would  only  ask,  where  is  the  "  mis-statement  ?"  To 
say  that  they  "  expressed  an  opinion  very  fully  in  favour  of  epis- 
copacy," is  surely  a  mode  of  speaking  sufficiently  strong  to  cover 
the  fact,  even  as  Mr-  How  states  it.  Whatever  "  difference"  there 
may  be  in  the  two  modes  of  expression,  there  is  certainly  no  incon- 
sistency between  them. 

Mr.  How  seems  desirous  of  impressing  on  the  minds  of  his  read- 
ers, that  the  English  delegates  had  been  warmly  solicited  by  the 
Dutch  to  attend  their  synod  ;  and  complied  with  their  solicitation, 
rather  as  a  matter  of  courtesy,  than  of  strict  ecclesiastical  order. 
He  says, "  The  English  bishops  being  invited  to  attend,  thought 
it  would  be  wrong  to  refuse  the  invitation  ;  especially  as  it  was 
their  ardent  wish  to  promote  union  and  harmony  among  protest- 
ants."  Now  it  happens  that  the  solicitation  was  all  on  the  other 
side.  The  fact  is,  that  the  states  of  Holland  at  first  intended  to 
form  the  synod  of  Dort  of  delegates  from  their  own  churches  only  : 
and  it  was  at  the  express  solicitation  of  King  James,  (whose  request 
was  communicated  and  seconded  by  Maurice,  Prince  of  Orange,) 
that  eminent  divines  deputed  from  England,  and  other  reformed 
countries,  were  Admitted  to  sit  and  deliberate  Jn  that  assembly.* 
Had  Mr.  How  been  acquainted  with  this  fact,  he  could  not  possibly 
have  penned  the  above  cited  paragraph. 

*  See  the  Dedications  of  the  Ads  of  the  Synod  of  Dart.  Toplady's 
Works,  Vol.  ii.  p.  253.  Christian  Observer,  Vol.  III.  p.  632.  Bishop 
Hall's  Works,  Vol.  III.  p.  15. 


444  LETTER  Vlll. 

I  had  produced,  in  my  seventh  letter,  the  conduct  of  the  English 
delegates  to  the  synod  of  Dort,  in  accepting  seats  in  that  assembly, 
as  an  implied  recognition  of  the  Presbyterian  church  of  Holland) 
as  a  true  church  5  and  of  all  the  ministers  of  the  continent  who 
composed  the  synod,  (though  none  of  them  had  received  episcopal 
ordination,)  as  true  ministers  of  Christ. — And  in  this  judgment 
the  episcopal  historian,  Colliery  concurs.  Dr.  Bowden}  however, 
is  of  opinion,  that  the  conduct  of  the  English  delegates  does  by 
no  means  admit  of  such  a  construction.  Mr.  How  goes  further, 
and  even  ventures  to  affirm,  that  the  history  of  the  English  dele- 
gation to  the  synod  of  Dort}  instead  of  affording  the  least  coun- 
tenance to  the  Presbyterian  doctrine  of  parity,  rather  shows  that 
the  most  respectable  delegates  to  that  synod,  from  the  different 
reformed  churches,  really  believed  in  the  doctrine  of  prelacy  by 
divine  right  ;  lamented  their  want  of  diocesan  bishops  ;  and  ascrib- 
ed their  want  of  this  ecclesiastical  regimen  only  to  necessity.  Nay, 
he  declares,  that  to  attempt  to  construe  the  attendance  of  the 
English  delegates  as  1  have  done,  "  is  as  puerile  as  it  is  disinge- 
nuous." Nothing  more  is  necessary  than  this  simple  statement  to 
show  Mr.  How's  entire  want  of  acquaintance  with  the  history  of 
that  synod,  and  the  import  of  its  transactions  ;  which,  indeed,  he 
betrays  in  almost  every  sentence  he  has  written  on  the  subject. 
Let  me  request  your  attention  to  the  following  particulars. 

The  ministers  of  the  Dutch  church  had  it  in  their  power,  at  the 
time  of  the  reformation,  to  retain  diocesan  episcopacy,  if  they  had 
thought  it  either  scriptural  or  expedient.  The  people,  for  a  num- 
ber of  centuries,  had  been  accustomed  to  this  kind  of  ecclesiastical 
government.  The  magistrates  made  no  objection  to  its  continu- 
ance. And  nothing  would  have  -been  more  easy  than  to  obtain 
regular  consecration  for  protestant  bishops.  No  necessity,  there- 
fore, of  rejecting  prelacy,  or  of  adopting  Presbyterian  parity,  in 
Holland)  ever  existed,  or  was  pretended  to  exist.  But  such  was 
the  knowledge  which  the  great  and  good  reformers,  in  that  coun- 
try, had  obtained  of  the  government,  as  well  as  the  doctrines  of  the 
primitive  church,  that  when  they  broke  off  from  popery,  they 
thought  it  their  duty  to  restore  the  scriptural  order,  together  with 
the  primitive  truth  of  the  church.  They  had  seen  the  mischiefs  of 
prelacy.  They  knew  that  it  had  no  divine  authority  for  its  sup- 
port—And, therefore,  when  they  threw  off  the  yoke  of  bondage^ 


SUCCESSORS  OP  THE  REFORMERS;  445 

they  rejected  this,  not  by  any  means  as  the  worst,  but  still  as  one 
of  the  errors  of  the  Church  of  Rome. 

The  faith,  government,  and  discipline  of  the  reformed  Dutch 
church  were  settled  by  a  succession  of  national  synods,  beginning 
with  that  of  Wesel  in  1568,  and  ending  with  that  of  Dort  in  1618 
and  1619.*  The  synods  held  .at  Wesel,  in  the  year  above  men- 
tioned, and  at  Embden,  in  1571,  are  considered  as  having  formed 
the  fundamental  articles  of  that  church,  both  with  respect  to  doc- 
trine and  government.  Among  the  proceedings  of  the  Synod  of 
Wesel,  it  was  ordained,  in  the  second  article  of  their  acts, "  That 
"  besides  forming  a  consistory  in  every  congregation,  the  Nether- 
"  land  provinces  should  be  divided  into  certain  classes.7' — And  in 
the  third  article,  they  say,  "  As  soon  as  it  shall  please  the  Lord  to 
"  open  a  door  for  the  free  preaching  of  his  word  in  the  Netherlands, 
"  care  shall  be  taken  immediately  for  calling  provincial  synods,  for 
"  arranging  all  matters,"  &c.  And  it  is  expressly  added,  that  in 
these  judicatories  the  ministers  shall  preside  in  rotation. — In  the 
Synod  of  Embden,  in  1571,  their  acts  commence  with  the  same 
regulation  respecting  consistories,  classes,  and  synods,  as  were 
stated  as  having  passed  at  Wesel,  three  years  before.  One  of  their 
articles  begins  with  these  words — "  No  church  shall  be  considered 
"  as  having  authority  over  another  church.  No  minister  of  the 
"  gospel  shall  be  vested  with  power  above  another  minister;  but 
a  every  one  shall  avoid  the  very  suspicion,  and  watch  against  eve- 
"  ry  temptation  that  might  draw  him  to  assume  a  superiority." 

It  is  observable  that,  for  the  formation  of  these  ecclesiastical  ju- 
dicatories, this  synod  distributed  the  reformed  churches  into  three 
great  districts.  One  comprehended  ail  the  churches  in  the  western 
part  of  Germany, -and  Holland,  or  East-Friesland.  Another  com- 
prised what  they  called  the  Churches  under  the  Cross,  meaning 
those  which  were  surrounded  by  papists,  and  exposed  to  the  per- 
secution of  popish  magistrates  and  ecclesiastics.  And  the  last  dis- 
trict which  they  named,  took  in  all  the  English  churches.  The 
12th  article,  which  relates  to  these  last,  is  very  remarkable.  "  And 
"  the  members  of  the  church  of  England  shall  be  admonished  to 

*  See  a  brief  and  perspicuous  sketch,  of  the  rise,  progress,  and  prin- 
ciples of  the  reformed  church  of  Holland,  in  a  small  book  entitled,  Ker-  • 
kelyk  Hantboekje,  &?c.  i.  e.  Church  Manual,  necessary  for  ministers  and 
consistories.     Delf.  1738. 


446  LETTER  VIII. 

"  distribute  their  churches  also  into  classes  without  any  further 
"  delay."  From  this  article  it  is  evident,  not  only  that  the  Dutch 
church,  at  this  period,  was  decidedly  anti-episcopal  in  her  princi- 
ples ;  but  also  that  she  wished  and  hoped  to  prevail  on  the  Church 
of  England  to  come  nearer  to  her  views  of  ecclesiastical  govern- 
ment, if  not  to  adopt  them.  There  is.  peculiar  emphasis  in  the 
word  admonish,  which  conveys  the  idea  of  exhortation  and  warn- 
ing, with  some  fear  of  delinquency. 

In  every  succeeding  national  synod  down  to  that  of  Dort,  the 
same  Presbyterian  principles  were  decidedly  avowed  and  main- 
tained, as  every  public  document  respecting  them  unequivocally 
proves.  In  fact,  with  regard  to  the  parity  of  ministers^  and  the 
government  of  the  church  by  consistorial,  classical,  and  synodical 
assemblies,  there  was  not  only  a  perfect  harmony,  and  absolute  de- 
cision, in  all  the  synods  antecedent  to  that  of  Dort,  but  each  suc- 
ceeding synod  literally  copied  the  language  of  the  preceding;  and 
all,  with  undeviating  consistency,  opposed  prelacy,  and  adhered  to 
the  Presbyterian  model.  I  challenge  Mr.  How,  or  any  of  his  friends, 
to  produce  a  single  authentic  testimony  which  shows  that,  among 
all  the  discussions  and  transactions  of  the  church  of  Holland,  re- 
specting ecclesiastical  policy,  there  was  ever  so  much  as  a  propo- 
sal to  make  the  government  of  that  church  episcopal ;  or  a  single 
sentence  from  the  writings  of  any  respectable  divine  in  her  commu- 
nion, which  expresses  a  belief  in  the  divine  right  of  diocesan  episco- 
pacy, or  even  a  preference  for  this  form  of  church  order. 

With  respect  to  the  synod  of  Dort,  every  one  who  is  acquainted 
with  its  history,  and  with  its  published  Acts,  knows  that  it  was 
entirely  and  exclusively  Presbyterian.  To  assert  or  insinuate  the 
contrary,  is  to  insult  the  understanding  of  every  well  informed\ 
man.  The  ministers  who  composed  that  synod,  were  among 
the  most  learned,  pious,  and  dignified  divines  that  ever  adorned 
the  Christian  church.  In  transacting  the  business  entrusted  to 
them,  they  bound  themselves  by  the  solemnity  of  an  oath,  to  ad- 
here strictly  to  the  word  of  God  in  all  their  proceedings.  And 
the  indisputable  fact  is,  that  these  men,  acting  under  this  awful 
solemnity,  did,  among  other  articles  relating  to  church  government, 
.form  and  adopt  the  following :  "  We  believe  that  this  true  church 
"  must  be  governed  by  that  spiritual  policy  which  our  Lord  hath 
"  taught  us  in  his  word  ;  namely,  that  there  must  be  ministers  or 


SUCCESSORS  OF  THE  REFORMERS.  447 

"  pastors,  to  preach  the  word  of  God,  and  to  administer  the  sacra - 
"'ments  ;  also  elders  and  deacons,  who,  together  with  the  pastors, 
tl  form  the  council  of  the  church.  -As  for  the  ministers  of  God's 
u  word,  they  have  equally  the  same  power  and  authority  where- 
"  soever  they  are  ;  as  they  are  all  ministers  of  Christ,  the  only  uni- 
"  versal  bishop,  and  the  only  head  of  the  church."* 

But  Dr.  Bowden  and  Mr.  How,  in  the  face  of  all  this  unques- 
tionable testimony,  still  contend,  that  the  principal  members  of  the 
synod  of  Dort  gave  their  suffrage  in  favour  of  episcopacy.  In  sup- 
port of  this  assertion,  they  quote  a  laconic  and  equivocal  reply  of 
Bogerman,  the  President  of  the  synod,  to  Bishop  Carleton  ;  and 
also  certain  private  conversations  said  to  have  been  held  by  the 
bishop  with  the  other  members  of  the  synod.  But  neither  of  these 
when  examined,  will  be  found  to  justify  the  use  which  is  attempted 
to  be  made  of  them. 

The  nature  and  circumstances  of  the  polite  reply  of  President 
Bogerman,  on  which  so  much  stress  has  been  laid,  were  as  fol- 
lows. Bishop  Carleton,  when  the  article  maintaining  the  parity 
of  ministers  came  under  consideration,  rose  in  his  place  and  op- 
posed its  adoption.  He  declared  that  diocesan  bishops  were  of 
divine  appointment ;  that  this  order  had  been  retained  in  the  church 
from  the  time  of  the  apostles ;  and  that  he  could  by  no  means  give 
his  sanction  to  the  article  proposed.  To'this  address  the  bishop 
himself  expressly  tells  us, "  no  answer  was  made  by  any."t  And 
Dr.  Heylin  says,  of  the  same  speech,  that  "  though  it  was  admit- 
"  ted,  and  perhaps  recorded,  it  received  no  other  answer  but 
"  neglect,  if  not  scorn  withal."} 

Bishop  Hall,  however,  (though  by  the  way,  he  was  not  present 
when  this  event  occurred,  having  retired  from  the  synod  three 
months  before,  on  account  of  indisposition,)  gives  a  different  ac- 
count of  the  matter.  Bishop  Carleton  himself,  tells  us  that,  in  his 
speech,  besides  declaring  his  belief  in  the  divine  appointment  of 
prelacy,  he  launched  out  in  praise  of  this  form  of  ecclesiastical 

*  Confession  of  Faith  of  the  Reformed  Churches  in  the  Netherlands, 
Articles  30  and  31. 

f  See  his  Protestation,  published  after  his  return,  and  entiled  Jlppello 
ad.  CiBsarem. 

t  Hist,  of  Presbyter.  Book  12.  p.  400. 


448  LETTER  VI j  I. 

government,  and  spoke  of  its  benign  effects  in  England,  in  pro- 
moting union,  order,  and  harmony  in  the  church  of  that  kingdom. 
To  all  this,  Bishop  Hall  says,  the  only  answer  made  was  by  the 
President,  Bogerman,  who  simply  replied,  "  Domine,  nos  non.su- 
mus  adeo  falices."  My  Lord,  we  are  not  so  happy.*  Now  as 
Bishop  Carleton,  who  made  the  speech,  declares  that  no  answer 
was  given  to  it  by  any  one  ;  as  Heylin  asserts  that  it  was  treated 
with  neglect,  if  not  with  scorn  ;  and  as  Bishop  Hall  was  not  him- 
self present,  at  this  time,  in  the  synod  ;  the  probability  is,  that  he 
has  given  an  erroneous  statement.  But  supposing  it  to  be  perfect- 
ly correct,  to  what  does  it  amount  ?  It  might  have  been  intended 
as  a  delicate  sarcasm  on  the  bishop,  for  his  unseasonable  introduc- 
tion of  this  controversy.  It  might  have  been  uttered  as  a  mere 
compliment  to  a  stranger,  who  was  a  prelate,  and  with  whom  it  -was 
not  desirable  to  have  any  dispute,  when  the  object  of  the  synod 
was  so  entirely  different.  It  might  have  been  meant  only  to  convey 
the  idea,  that  the  church  of  Holland  was  not  so  happy  as  to  be  in 
that  quiet,  united,  and  orderly  state,  which  had  been  represented 
as  existing  in  the  church  of  England.  At  any  rate  the  answer  is 
perfectly  equivocal,  and  furnishes  no  warrant  whatever  for  the 
construction  of  my  opponents. 

But  these  gentlemen  lay  no  small  stress  on  another  circumstance. 
Bishop  Carleton,  in  th'e  same  Protestation  which  was  before 
quoted,  informs  us,  that  "  in  his  private  discourse  with  some  of  the 
"  most  learned  divines  of  the  synod,  he  told  them  that  the  troubles 
"  of  Holland  proceeded  from  their  want  of  bishops  ;  and  that  the 
"  Churches  of  those  provinces  would  never  be  quiet  until  they  had 
"  bishops  to  govern  the  clergy."  To  these  remarks,  he  tells  us, 
they  answered,  "  that  they  highly  esteemed  the  good  order  and 
"  discipline  of  the  Church 'of  England,  and  heartily  wished  the 
"  same  order  was  established  it?  their  country  ;  but  that  they  could 
"  not  hope  for  it  in  the  present  posture  of  affairs.  They  added, 
"  that  they  hoped  God  would  assist  them  by  his  grace,  and  that 
"  they  would  contribute  with  all  their  might  to  the  establishment  of 
"  that  good  order."  "Such,"  the  bishop  adds,  "  was  their  answer 
"  to  me.  This  I  think,  justifies  them  sufficiently.  It  appears  that 

*  Halls  Episcopacy  by  Divine.  Might,  8tc.  Part.  i.  §  4. 


SUCCESSORS  OP  THE  REFORMERS.  449 

"they  do  not  love  popular  confusion,  and  a  government  desti- 
"  tute  of  all  authority."  Mr.  How  must  really  be  at  a  loss  for 
testimony,  when  he  can  speak  with  so  much  exultation  of  this  an- 
swer. It  is  nothing  to  the  purpose.  The  bishop,  according  to 
his  own  account,  had  been  declaiming  on  the  advantages  of  Episco- 
pal government,  and  on  its  influence  as  he  supposed,  in  promoting 
the  tranquillity,  and  happiness  of  the  Church  which  lie  represented. 
To  this,  the  Dutch  divines,  according  to  the  same  account,  replied, 
that  they  had  a  very  respectful  opinion  of  the  good  order  and 
discipline  of  the  Church  of  England,  and  heartily  wished  that 
similar  order  and  discipline  were  established  in  their  own  Church. 
But  what  did  they  mean  by  the  "  good  order"  and  "  discipline" 
of  the  Church  of  England?  Did  they  mean  her  prelacy?  This 
is  so  far  from  being  certain  that  it  is  not  even  probable.  There  is 
every  reason  to  believe  they  only  meant  to  say,  that  they  highly 
esteemed  the  regular,  settled,  and  orderly  state  which  the  English 
Church  had  attained  ;  that  they  should  be  glad  to  see  a  similar  re- 
gularity, and  quietness  established  among  themselves;  but  that 
amidst  so  much  confusion,  they  could  hardly  expect  so  happy  a 
result.  The  truth  is,  the  peace  of  the  Church  of  Holland  was,  at 
this  time,  much  disturbed  by  the  controversy  with  the  Remon- 
strants, which  deeply  agitated  both  church  and  state.  In  these 
circumstances,  nothing  was  more  natural  than  that  the  members  of 
the  Synod  should  lament  their  divisions,  and  express  a  desire  to 
establish  among  themselves  the  same  quietness  and  peace  which 
the  Church  of  England  enjoyed ;  and  all  this  they  might  say  with- 
out having  the  least  wish  or  preference  in  favour  of  her  prelacy. 

This  then  is  the  state  of  the  case.  The  Reformed  Church  of 
Holland  was  Presbyterian  from  the  beginning.  By  a  succession 
of  national  synods  the  doctrine  of  ministerial  parity  was  asserted, 
published  and  maintained,  in  the  most  decisive  manner,  not  merely 
as  dictated  by  expediency,  but  also  as  founded  in  divine  appoint- 
ment. The  Synod  of  Dort  spoke  the  same  language,  and  main- 
tained the  same  doctrine.  Nay,  with  a  solemnity  which  had  taken 
place  at  no  preceding  synod,  the  members  of  that  assembly,  under 
the  obligation  of  an  oath,  declared,  that  they  considered  themselves 
as  bound  to  conform  to  the  apostolic  model  of  church  government, 
and  that  this  model  was  Presbyterian.  And  to  all  this  evidence, 
Mr.  How  has  nothing  to  oppose,  but  a  few  equivocal  words  of 
3  L 


45-0  LETTER  VIII. 

some  individual  members  of  the  synod,  which  probably  had  no 
reference  to  prelacy  at  all.  Who,  now,  let  me  ask,  has  proved 
himself  most  liable  to  the  charges  of  "  extreme  imprudence,''  and 
of  having  brought  forward  "  puerile"  and  "  disingenuous"  allega- 
tions? Truly  charges  of  this  kind  come  with  a  very  ill  grace  from 
Mr.  How. 

But  we  have  another  method  of  ascertaining  the  real  sentiments 
of  some  of  those  divines  who  composed  the  Synod  of  Dort,  besides 
their  public  conduct  in  that  body.  I  mean  by  examining  their 
private  writings^  in  which  we  may  take  for  granted  they  expressed 
their  genuine  convictions.  From  such  of  those  writings  as  I  have 
been  able  to  procure,  a  few  short  extracts  will  be  presented,  and 
will  be  found  conclusive. 

Gomarus,  professor  of  divinity  at  Groningen,  was  one  of  the 
most  eminent  of  the  Dutch  delegates  to  that  famous  synod.  On 
the  subject  of  Episcopacy,  he  expresses  himself  in  the  following 
strong  and  decisive  language.  "  The  designation  of  bishop,  as 
"  introduced  after  the  apostles'  time,  is  unknown  to  the  Scriptures, 
"  in  which  it  signifies  the  same  thing  with  the  presbyter  and  pastor. 
"  Where  Paul  recites  the  various  kinds  of  Gospel  ministers,  as  in 
"  Ephes.  4.  11,  he  acknowledges  no  such  bishops  distinct  from 
"  Presbyters,  and  superior  to  them.  To  which  purpose  Jerome's 
'•'judgment  is  memorable,  which  is  extant  in  his  commentary  on 
"  the  Epistle  to  Titus  i.  1,  where,  comparing  the  5th  and  7ih  verses, 
"  he  infers  that  the  bishop  and  presbyter  are  one  and  the  same. 
"  Which  point  he  doth,  likewise,  (in  the  same  manner  that  we 
"  have  done,)  demonstrate  from  Philip,  i.  1.  and  Acts  xx.  28,  29. 
"  and  other  passages  connected  therewith,  concluding  all  with  this 
"  weighty  assertion,  that  with  the  ancients,  bishops  and  presbyters 
"  were  one  and  the  same  ;  until,  by  degrees,  the  care  and  inspec- 
"  tion  were  put  upon  one  ;  and  that  the  bishops  were  set  over  the 
"presbyters,  rather  by  custom  than  by  divine  appointment.  This 
"  custom,  continues  Go'marus,  did,  at  last,  bring  upon  the  Church, 
"  the  mischievous  dominion  of  bishops,  contrary  to  the  apostle's 
"  command."* 

Again,  "  There  is  no  bishop  to  be  found  set  over  presbyters  in 
"  any  place  of  holy  writ.  The  distinguishing  of  bishops  from 

*  Explicat.  Epist.  ad  Galaias,  Cap.  n.  p.  487. 


SUCCESSORS  OP  THE  REFORMERS.  451 

"  presbyters,  and  setting  them  over  presbyters,  in  an  authoritative 
"  prelacy,  took  its  rise/row  no  divine  institution,  but  from  human 
"  tradition,  which  had  its  foundation  in  pride."* 

Polijander,  Thysius,  and  Walwus  Professors  of  divinity  in  the 
Universities  of  Leyden,  Harderwick,  and  Middelburg,  were  also 
conspicuous  and  active  members  of  the  synod  of  Dort.  These 
learned  divines  were  engaged  in  a  joint  work,  under  the  title  of 
Synopsis  Theologies,  which  has  been  long  highly  esteemed  in  the 
church  of  Holland.  Of  that  work,  the  following  strong  and  decisive 
passages  are  a  specimen. 

"  The  apostle  calls  the  same  persons  presbyters  and  bishops 
"  indifferently.  Of  this  we  have  examples,  in  Acts  20, 28,  where 
"  he  exhorts  the  presbyters  of  the  church  of  Ephesus  to  attend  to 
"  the  flock  over  which  the  Holy  Ghost  had  made  them  bishops  ; 
11  — also  in  i  Timothy  3,  2.  where  he  describes  a  bishop  from  his 
"  qualifications  and  duties,  which  same  qualifications  and  duties, 
"  the  Apostle  Peter  ascribes  to  his  fellow-presbyters  ;  so  also  in 
"  his  epistle  to  the  Philippians  1.  1.  by  bishops  he  evidently 
ec  understands  those  who  presicred  over  the  church  of  Philippi, 
t(  in  the  administration  of  the  word  and  discipline ;  and  these 
"  he  distinguishes  from  deacons  who  were  entrusted  with  the 
"  church's  treasure,  &c.  &c."  After  adducing  several  other 
instances  of  a  similiar  kind,  it  is  added,  "  The  title  of  bishop 
"  in  scripture  does  not  denote  the  authority  of  one  minister 
"  over  other  ministers  of  Christ,  or  any  kind  of  prerogative  enjoyed 
"  by  one  over  others ;  but  is  merely  used  to  designate  that  watch 
"  and  care  over  the  church  which  belongs  to  an  individual." 

Again,  "  The  practice,  therefore,  of  in  vesting  one  person  from 
"  among  the  presbyters  with  the  authority  of  president,  and  giving 
"  him,  by  way  of  eminence,  the  title  of  bishop,  was  not  a  divine, 
"  but  a  mere  human  appointment,  and  was  brought  in  after  the 
"apostles' time  ;  as,  after  Jerome,  many  of  the  papists  themselves 
'"  confess,  particularly  Lombard,  Gratian,  Cusan,  and  others." 

Further,  "  The  right  of  choosing  pastors  belongs  to  the  church, 
"  and  as  well  to  the  body  of  the  people  as  to  the  elders  ;  but  the 
"  right  of  ordination  belongs  to  the  presbytery  alone.  And  accord- 
"  ingly,  in  ancient  times,  the  .election  of  pastors  was  made  by  the 
"  suffrages  of  the  whole  body  of  the  people  belonging  to  a  church  ; 

*  Explicai.  in  i  Pet,  5.  p.  704. 


452  LETTER  VIII. 

«  but  the  ordination  was  performed  by  one  of  the  pastors,  in  the 
"  name  of  the  whole  presbytery,  and  in  the  presence  of  the  church, 
"  by  the  imposition  of  hands." 

In  another  place  they  declare,  "  Although  a  few  of  the  first  pas- 
"  tors  of  our  churches  were  ordained  by  bishops,  by  far  the  greater 
"  part  have  been  more  recently  ordained  by  presbyters.  The  or- 
"  dination  of  the  latter  is  quite  as  valid  as  that  of  the  former  ;  be- 
"  cause  bishops  and  presbyters  were  formerly  the  same  thing  ;  and 
"  by  divine  right,  the  power  of  ordaining  pastors  equally  belonged 
"  to  both."* 

In  the  same  work,  these  divines,  in  the  most  explicit  manner, 
assert  the  apostolical  institution  of  ruling  elders  and  deacons  ;  the 
former  to  assist  the  pastor  in  the  exercise  of  government  and  dis- 
cipline in  each  church  ;  the  latter  to  take  care  of  the  poor.  And 
they  expressly  declare,  that  they  consider  the  Church  of  Holland, 
in  retaining  these  officers,  as  following  the  example  of  the  apostolic 
church.t 

You  will  pardon  me,  my  brethren,  for  this  long,  and  I  fear,  te- 
dious induction  of  authorities  and  quotations.  It  never  occurred  to 
me,  before  I  saw  Mr.  How's  pamphlet,  that  it  was  possible  for  any 
well-informed  man,  who  valued  his  reputation,  to  give  such  a 
statement  as  that  gentleman  has  done  of  the  sentiments  of  the  princi- 
pal divines  of  the  reformed  churches.  We  now  see  of  what  he  is 
capable.  The  next  step  will  probably  be  to  assert,  that  the  Gene- 
ral Assembly  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States,  ever 
has  been,  and  now  is,  decidedly  prelatical  both  in  its  principles  and 
practice.  For,  really,  such  an  assertion  would  not  be  a  whit  more 
unfounded,  nor  fly  more  directly  in  the  face  of  all  authentic  testi- 
mony, than  several  which  I  have  been  called  to  refute  in  the  fore- 
going pages.  It  is  plain,  however,  that  the  more  deeply  and  exten- 
sively we  pursue  our  inquiries,  the  stronger  and  brighter  appears 
the  evidence  in  favour  of  the  Presbyterian  doctrine.  It  is  more  and 
more  manifest,  that,  in  pleading  the  cause  of  this  doctrine,  we  are 
pleading  the  cause  of  every  protestant  church  on  earth,  excepting 
that  of  England,  and  those  who  claim  descent  from  her  as  their 
parent. 

*  Synop.  Pur.  Theologize.  Disputat.  XLII.  §  29,  30.  32,  33.  47. 
f  Ibid.  Disputat.  XLII.  20.  59.  60.  65. 


(  453  ) 


LETTER  IX. 


RISE  AND  PROGRESS  OF  PRELACY. 


CHRISTIAN  BRETHREN, 

DR.  Bowden  represents  Presbyterians  as  believing  that  prela- 
cy was  suddenly  and  violently  established ;  that  "  a  wonderful  revo- 
"  lution  took  place,  calculated  to  influence  the  passions  of  thou- 
"  sands,  producing  violent  convulsions,  and  virulent  animosities." 
And  expresses  great  astonishment  that  such  a  revolution,  intro- 
duced at  once,  should  not  have  been  more  distinctly  recorded  by 
the  early  writers. 

This  is  a  total  misrepresentation.  Presbyterians  believe  and 
affirm,  with  Jerome,  that  prelacy  arose  "  by  little  and  little." 
They  attribute  its  introduction  to  causes  quite  sufficient  to  account 
for  the  fact,  without  producing  the  convulsions  and  noise  which  fill 
the  imagination  of  Dr.  Bowden.  These  causes  were,  the  facility, 
the  indolence,  and  the  inconsideration  of  some  ;  the  ambition  of 
others ;  the  precedency  of  standing  moderators  ;  the  veneration 
paid  to  senior  ministers,  and  such  as  were  of  superior  talents  and 
influence ;  the  respect  attached  to  those  who  resided  in  large  cities, 
and  other  considerations  of  a  similar  kind.  With  such  Causes  as 
these  incessantly  at  work,  who  can  fail  to  consider  as  the  most 
probable  of  all  events,  that  which  Dr.  B.  represents  as  altogether 
impossible  ? 

But  Dr.  Bowden  thinks  it  utterly  incredible  that  the  clergy  in 
the  second  or  third  centuries  should  have  been  guilty  of  usurping 
power,  or  of  struggling  for  pre-eminence.  If  we  may  believe  him 


454  LETTER  IX. 

they  were  too  pious,  disinterested,  and  humble,  to  admit  the  sus- 
picion of  selfishness  or  ambition  having  any  place  among  them. 
"  Surely,"  says  he,  "  men  of  such  distinguished  virtue  and  piety, 
"  as  the  bishops  of  that  period  are  universally  acknowledged  to 
"  have  been,  could  not  have  entertained  a  thought  so  inconsistent 
"  with  a  pure  conscience,  with  peace  of  mind,  and  with  the  hope  of 
"  future  happiness.  Could  men  who  displayed  all  the  meekness 
"  and  humility  of  Christians,  have  attempted  a  plan  of  domination 
"  so  completely  at  variance  with  these  virtues?  Could  men  who 
"  endured  every  thing  for  the  sake  of  Christ,  violate  his  sacred  in- 
"  stitution  ?  Could  men,  who,  to  save  themselves  from  the  most 
"  excruciating  torments,  would  not  offer  incense  at  the  idol  altars, 
"  deliberately  associate  for  the  purpose  of  acquiring  a  trifling 
"  authority  over  their  brethren  ?  What !  conscientious  in  every 
"  thing  relating  to  Christian  purity,  to  Christian  manners,  and  yet 
"  profligate  as  to  the  constitution  of  the  Christian  church  !  Gross 
"  inconsistency  !  Palpable  contradiction !"  Again — "  What  was 
"  the  motive  that  influenced  a  few  presbyters  to  attempt  an  as- 
"  sumption  of  superiority  over  their  brethren  ?  Was  it  a  desire  of 
"  temporal  power?  That  was  entirely  out  of  the  question,  without 
"  the  aid  of  civil  authority.  And  every  one  knows  that  kind  of 
"  authority  was  exerted  for  the  destruction  of  the  church.  Was  it 
"  the  love  of  iceallh?  None  resulted  from  the  acquisition,  or  could 
"  result  from  it.  The  people  were  generally  poor,  and  the  bi- 
"  shops,  as  well  as  the  presbyters,  and  deacons  were  maintained 
"  out  of  the  offerings  at  the  altar ;  and  scanty  was  the  fare  that 
"  proceeded  from  that  source.  Was  it  the  love  of  ease  and  secu- 
"  rity  ?  That  could  not  be ;  for  episcopal  superiority  greatly 
"  increased  the  labours  of  the  bishops,  and  exposed  them  to  almost 
"  certain  destruction.  If,  then,  neither  dominion,  nor  wealth,  nor 
"  ease,  nor  security,  could  possibly  be  the  motives  for  so  daring  an 
"  attempt  as  to  deprive  the  presbyters  of  their  most  sacred  rights, 
"  those  ambitious  spirits,  as  you  deem  them,  must  have  acted 
"  without  any  motive,  which  is  evidently  inconsistent  with  the 
"  very  nature  and  constitution  of  the  human  mind." 

Jt  is  really  putting  one's  patience  to  a  very  severe  test  to  find  an 
opponent  so  frequently  alluding  to  his  own  superior  "  scholarship" 
and  reading,  and  at  the  same  time  permitting  himself  to  write  in 
this  manner.  What !  no  clerical  ambition  !  No  strife  about  pre- 


RISE  AND  PROGRESS  OF  PRELACY.  455 

eminence?  No  ecclesiastical  usurpation  in  those  early  ages?  It 
would  have  been  just  as  reasonable,  and  just  as  true,  if  he  had  said 
that  the  gospel  was  preached  in  those  days  by  none  but  angels. — 
But  let  us  attend  to  a  few  facts. 

Passing  by  several  cases  in  point  which  occurred  during  the 
the  lives,  and  under  the  immediate  eye  of  the  apostles,  when,  as 
St.  Paul  himself  assures  us,  the  mystery  of  iniquity  had  already 
begun  to  work,  let  me  ask,  Was  there  no  spirit  of  domination  ma- 
nifested in  the  fierce  dispute  between  Victor,  bishop  of  Rome,  and 
Polycrates,  of  Ephesus,  which  took  place  in  the  second  century, 
as  related  by  Eusebius  ?    Was  no  love  of  pre-eminence  displayed 
by  Cerinthus  and  Sasilides,  whose  burning  desire  was  "  to  be 
"  accounted  great  apostles  ?"  Did  Montanus,  in  the  same  century, 
exhibit  no  ambition  in  broaching  his  celebrated  heresy?     Was 
Samosatenus,  in  the  third  wholly  free  from  the  same  charge  ?  Did 
Demetrius  of  Alexandria,  discover  nothing  of  an  aspiring  temper, 
when  he  sickened  with  envy  at  the  fame  and  the  success  of  Ori- 
gen  ?     Are  there  no  accounts  of  Novatus  having  sought,  ambi- 
tiously and  fraudulently,  to  obtain  the  bishopric  of  Rome?     Did 
not  his  contemporary,  FeHcissimus,  make  a  vigorous  attempt  to 
supplant  Cyprian,  as  bishop  of  Carthage  ?    Was  not  Cyprian 
brought  in  to  be  bishop  in  that  city,  by  the  influence  of  the  people, 
in  opposition  to  the  majority  of  the  presbyters,  some  cf  whom 
were  anxious  to  obtain  the  place  for  themselves  ?     And  did  there 
not  hence  arise  frequent  collisions  between  him  and  them,  and  at 
length  an  open  rupture?     1  ask,  are  any  of  these  things  related  in 
the  early  history  of  the  church  ?     And  can  any  man,  with  such 
records  before  him,  lay  his  hand  on  his  heart,  and  assert  that  there 
were  no  symptons  of  a  spirit  of  ambition  and  domination  in  those 
times  ? 

But  I  will  not  content  myself  with  this  general  reference  to  the 
early  conflicts  of  selfishness  and  ambition.  The  following  specific 
quotations  will  be  more  than  sufficient,  if  I  do  not  mistake,  to  cover 
Dr.  Boioden  with  confusion. 

Hermas,  one  of  the  earliest  fathers  whose  writings  are  extant, 
says,  in  his  Pastor,  "  As  for  those  who  had  their  rods  green,  but 
"  yet  cleft;  they  are  such  as  were  always  faithful  and  good;  but 
"  they  had  some  envy  and  strife  among  themselves,  concerning 
"  dignity  and  pre-eminence.  Now  all  such  are  vain  and  without 


456  LETTER  IX, 

«  understanding,  as  contend  with  one  another  about  these  things. 
«  Nevertheless,  seeing  they  are  otherwise  good,  if,  when  they  shall 
"  hear  these  commands,  they  shall  amend  themselves,  and  shall, 
"  at  my  persuasion,  suddenly  repent;  they  shall,  at  last,  dwell  in 
"  the  tower,  as  they  who  have  truly  and  worthily  repented.  But 
"  if  any  one  shall  again  return  to  his  dissensions,  he  shall  be  shut 
"  out  of  the  tower,  and  Jose  his  life.  For  the  life  of  those  who 
"  keep  the  commandments  of  the  Lord,  consists  in  doing  what 
"  they  are  commanded  ;  not  in  principality  ,  or  in  any  other 
"  dignity"* 

Hegcsippus,  who  lived  in  the  second  century,  and  who  was  the 
first  father  who  undertook  to  compose  a  regular  ecclesiastical  his- 
tory, writes  thus.  "When  James,  the  just,  had  been  martyred 
"  for  the  same  doctrine  which  our  Lord  preached,  Simon,  the  son 
"  of  Cleophas,  was  constituted  bishop  with  universal  preference, 
"  because  he  was  the  Lord's  near  kinsman.  Wherefore  they 
"  called  that  church  a  pure  virgin,  because  it  was  not  defiled  with 
"  corrupt  doctrine.  But  Thebuli,  because  he  was  not  made  bishop, 
"  endeavoured  to  corrupt  the  church  ;  being  one  of  the  seven  here- 
"  tics  among  the  people,  whereof  was  Simon,  of  whom  the  Simo- 


Dr.  Bowden  represents  the  age  of  Cyprianas  among  the  very 
purest  periods  of  the  Christian  church,  and  quotes  that  father  with 
a  frequency  and  a  confidence  which  evince  the  highest  respect  for 
his  authority.  The  following  passages  will  show  how  far  the  il- 
lustrious pastor  of  Carthage  considered  the  bishops  of  his  day  as 
beyond  the  reach  of  selfishness  and  ambition. 

"  A  long  continuance  of  peace  and  security!  had  relaxed  the 
"  rigour  of  that  holy  discipline  which  was  delivered  to  us  from 
"  above.  All  were  set  upon  an  immeasurable  increase  of  gain  ; 
"  and,  forgetting  how  the  first  converts  to  our  religion  had  behaved 
"  under  the  personal  direction  and  care  of  the  Lord's  apostles,  or 
"  how  all  ought  in  after  times  to  conduct  themselves  ;  the  love  of 
"money  was  their  darling  passion,  and  the  master  spring  of  all 

*  Simil.  8.  §  7. 

f  See  fragments  of  this  writer  preserved  in  Eusebius,  Lib.  iv.  Cap. 
22. 
$  They  had  been  free  from  persecution  only  about  thirty  eight^years. 


RISE  AND  PROGRESS  OF  PRELACY.          457 

«  their  actions.  The  religion  of  the  clergy  slackened  and  decayed  ; 
"  the  faith  of  priests  and  deacons  grew  languid  and  inactive  ; 
"  works  of  charity  were  discontinued  ;  and  an  universal  license 
"  and  corruption  prevailed.  Divers  bishops,  who  should  have 
"  taught,  both  by  their  example  and  persuasion,  neglecting  their 
"  high  trust,  and  their  commission  from  above,  entered  upon  the 
"  management  of  secular  affairs;  and  leaving  their  chair,  and  their 
"  charge  with  it,  wandered  about,  from  place  to  place  in  different 
"  provinces,  upon  mercantile  business,  and  in  quest  of  disreputable 
te  gain.  Thus  the  poor  of  the  church  were  miserably  neglected, 
"  while  the  bishops,  who  should  have  taken  care  of  them,  were  in- 
"  tent  upon  nothing  but  their  own  private  projit,  which  they  were 
"  forward  to  advance  at  any  rate,  and  by  any,  even  the  foulest 
«  methods."* 

Speaking  of  Cornelius,  who  had  been  made  bishop,  Cyprian 
says,  "  In  the  next  place,  he  neither  desired,  nor  canvassed  for 
"  the  dignity  conferred  upon  him ;  much  less  did  he  invade  it,  as 
"  some  others  would,  who  were  actuated  by  a  great  and  lofty  con- 
"  ceit  of  their  own  qualifications  ;  but  peaceably  and  modestly,  like 
"  such  as  are  called  of  God  to  this  office. — Instead  timing  violence, 
"  as  a  certain  person  in  this  case  hath  done,  to  be  made  a  bishop, 
"  he  suffered  violence,  and  was  raised  to  his  dignity  by  force  and 
"  compulsion.'5! 

The  same  father,  in  the  same  epistle,  has  the  following  passage. 
"  Unless  you  can  think  him  a  bishop,  who,  when  another  was  or- 
V  dained  by  sixteen  of  his  brethren  bisTiops,  would  obtrude  upon 
"  the  church  a  spurious  and  foreign  bishop,  ordained  by  a  parcel 
"  of  renegadoes  and  deserters ;  and  that  by  canvassing  and 
"  intriguing  for  it/'f 

Cyprian  speaks  also  of  a  certain  deacon  who  had  been  deposed 
from  his  "  sacred  diaconate,  on  account  of  his  fraudulent  and 
"  sacrilegious  misapplication  of  the  church's  money  to  his  own 
"  private  use ;  and  by  his  denial  of  the  widows'  and  orphans' 
"  pledges  deposited  withhim."^ 

Origen,  the  contemporary  of  Cyprian,  more  than  once  lashes 
the  clergy  of  his  day  for  their  vices.  The  following  passage  is 

*  De  Lapsis,  §4.  t  Eput.  55. 

*  Ibid.  §  Epist.  52. 

3  M 


458  LETTER  IX. 

surely  strong  enough,  were  there  no  other,  to  take  away  all  doubt. 
«  If  Christ  justly  wept  over  Jerusalem,  he  may  now,  on  much  bet- 
"  ter  grounds,  weep  over  the  churchy  which  was  built  to  the  end 
"  that  it  might  be  an  house  of  prayer  5  and  yet,  through  thejilthy 
"  usury  of  some,  (and  I  wish  these  were  not  even  the  pastors  of 
"  the  people,)  is  made  a  den  of  thieves.  But  I  think  that  that 
"which  is  written  concerning  the  sellers  of  doves,  doth  agree  to 
"  those  who  commit  the  churches  to  greedy,  tyrannical,  unlearned, 
t(  and  irreligious  bishops,  presbyters,  and  deacons"*  The  same 
father  elsewhere  declares  :  «  We  are  such  as  that  we  sometimes  in 
"  pride  go  beyond  even  the  wickedest  of  the  princes  of  the  gen- 
"  tiles;  and  are  just  at  the  point  of  procuring  for  ourselves  splen- 
"  did  guards,  as  if  we  were  kings,  making  it  our  study  moreover 
"  to  be  a  terror  to  others,  and  giving  them,  especially  if  they  be 
"  poor,  very  uneasy  access.  We  are  to  them,  when  they  come  and 
"  seek  any  thing  from  us,  more  cruel  tha§n  are  even  tyrants,  or  the 
"  cruelest  princes  to  their  supplicants.  And  you  may  see,  even  in 
"  the  greater  part  of  lawfully  constituted  churches,  especially  those 
"  of  greater  cities,  how  the  pastors  of  God's  people,  suffer  none, 
"  though  they  were  even  the  chiefest  of  Christ's  disciples,  to  be 
"  equal  with  themselves.'7t 

Eusebius,  who  lived  in  the  next  century,  writes  in  the  same 
strain  concerning  the  age  of  Cyprian.  "  When,  through  too  much 
"  liberty,  we  fell  into  sloth  and  negligence ;  when  every  one  began 
"  to  envy  and  backbite  another  ;  when  we  waged,  as  it  were,  an 
"  intestine  war  amongst  ourselves,  with  words  as  with  swords  5 
"  pastors  rushed  against  pastors,  and  people  against  people,  and 
"  strife  and  tumult,  deceit  and  guile  advanced  to  the  highest  pitch 
"  of  wickedness. — Our  pastors,  despising  the  rule  of  religion, 
"  strove  mutually  with  one  another,  studying  nothing  more  than 
"  how  to  outdo  each  other  in  strife,  emulations,  hatred,  and  mu- 
"  tual  enmity ;  proudly  usurping  principalities,  as  so  many 
"  places  of  tyrannical  domination.  Then  the  Lord  covered  the 
"  daughter  of  Zion  with  a  cloud  in  his  anger."| 

Nay,  Archbishop  Whitgift,  with  all  his  episcopal  partialities, 
was  constrained  to  acknowledge  the  ambitious  and  aspiring  temper 
which  disgraced  many  bishops  even  as  early  as  the  time  of 

*  In  Matt.  p.  441.  f  Ibid.  p.  420. 

t  Hist.  Eccles.  Lib.  VIII.  Cap.  I. 


RISE  AND  PROGRESS  OF  PRELACY.  459 

Cyprian.  "  There  was  great  contention,"  says  he,  «  among  the 
"  bishops  in  the  council  of -Nice,  insomuch  that  even  in  the  presence 
«  of  the  Emperor,  they  ceased  not  to  libel  one  against  another. 
"  What  bitterness  and  cursing  was  there  between  Epiphanius  and 
"  Chrysostomf  What  jarring  between  Jerome  and  Augustine! 
"  Bishops  shall  not  now  need  to  live  by  pilling  and  polling,  as  it 
"  seems  they  did  in  Cyprian's  time;  for  he  complaineth  thereof 
"  in  his  sermon  De  Lapsis."* 

With  Whitgift  agrees  his  contemporary  Rigatiius,  who  was  so 
much  distinguished  for  his  learned  annotations  on  the  works  of 
Cyprian.  Speaking  of  Cyprian's  age,  and  of  the  deacon's  office, 
he  says,  "  By  little  and  little,  and  from  : small  beginnings,  a-  king- 
"  dam,  and  a  love  of  dominion  entered  into  the  church. — In  the 
"  apostles'  time  there  were  only  deacons  ;  Cyprian's  age  admitted 
"sub-deacons;  the  following  age  arch-deacons /and  then  arch- 
"  bishops  and  patriarchs." 

These  extracts  are  produced,  not  to  blacken  the  ministerial 
character  ;  but  to  establish  the  fact,  which  Dr.  Bowden  denies,  that 
clerical  ambition,  and  clerical  encroachments  were  familiarly 
known,  even  during  that  period  which  he  pronounces  the  purest 
that  was  ever  enjoyed  by  the  Christian  church.  I  certainly  have 
no  interest,  and  can  take  no  pleasure  in  depicting  the  foibles,  the 
strife,  and  the  vices,  of  the  clergy  in  any  age.  But  when  assertions 
are  made  respecting  them  as  directly  contradictory  to  all  history, 
as  they  are  contrary  to  the  course  of  depraved  human  nature ;  and 
especially  when  these  assertions  are  triumphantly  employed  as 
arguments  to  establish  other  assertions  equally  unfounded,  it  is  time 
to  vindicate  the  truth.  To  do  this,  in  the  present  case,  is  an  easy 
task.  The  man  who,  after  perusing  the  foregoing  extracts,  can 
dare  to  say,  that  the  clergy  of  the  first  three  centuries,  were  all  too 
pious  and  disinterested  to  admit  the  suspicion,  that  they  aspired  to 
titles  and  honours,  and  intrigued  for  the  attainment  of  episcopal 
chairs,  must  have  a  hardihood  of  incredulity,  or  an  obliquity  of 
perception  truly  extraordinary.  We  have  seen  that  Hernias 
plainly  refers  to  certain  ecclesiastics  of  his  time,  who  had  "  envy 
and  strife  among  themselves  concerning  dignity  and  pre-eminence." 
Hegesippus  goes  further,  and  points  out  the  case  of  a  particular 

*  Defence  of  his  Answer  against  Cartwright,  p.  472.  &c. 


460  LETTER  IX. 

individual,  who  ambitiously  aspired  to  the  office  of  bishop,  and 
was  exceedingly  disappointed  and  mortified  at  not  obtaining  it. 
Cyprian  expressly  declares  not  only  that  a  spirit  of  intrigue,  of 
worldly  gain,  and  of  ecclesiastical  domination,  existed  among  the 
clergy  of  his  day,  but  that  such  a  spirit  was  awfully  prevalent 
among  them.  Eusebius  gives  us  similar  information  in  still  stronger 
terms.  Archbishop  Whitgift  makes  the  same  acknowledgment, 
more  particularly  with  respect  to  the  bishops  of  that  period.  And 
even  Dr.  Eowden  himself,  forgetting  his  own  assertions,  unwarily 
acknowledges,  in  several  other  parts  of  his  work,  that  a  number  of 
persons,  as  early  as  the  days  of  Cyprian,  and  before  his  time,  who 
aspired  to  the  office  of  bishop,  and  who  used  every  effort  and 
artifice  to  attain  it,  on  being  disappointed,  distinguished  themselves 
as  heretics  or  schismatics,  and  became  the  pests  of.  the  church. 
Was  there  no  spirit  of  ambition  and  domination  among  such  men  ? 
Why  did  they  aspire  to  the  office  of  bishop  ?  Was  there  nothing  in 
that  office  to  attract  their  regard,  or  to  excite  their  cupidity?  Or 
did  they  act  without  motive  ?  Surely  this  gentleman  needs  to  have 
some  one  at  hand  to  refresh  his  memory,  and  to  prevent  him  from 
warring  against  his  own  cause.  But  a  man  must  be  wary  and 
ingenious  indeed,  who  can  be  consistent  when  truth  is  against 
him. 

Still,  however,  the  question  recurs :  What,  in  those  days  of  per- 
secution and  peril,  before  Christianity  was  established ;  when  the 
powers  of  the  world  were  leagued  against  it  5  and  when  every 
Christian  pastor  especially  held  a  station  of  much  self-denial  and 
danger,  what  could  induce  any  selfish  or  ambitious  man  to  desire 
the  pastoral  office,  and  to  intrigue  for  the  extension  of  the  powers 
and  honours  of  that  office  ?  When  my  opponents  can  tell  me  what 
induced  Judas  Iscariot  to  follow  Christ  at  the  risk  of  his  life  5  when 
they  can  tell  me  what  impelled  Diotreplies  to  desire  the  pre-emi- 
nence in  the  church  ;  or  what  were  the  objects  of  Demas,  Hyme- 
n&us,  and  Alexander,  in  their  restless  and  ambitious  conduct,  while 
Calvary  was  yet  smoking  with  the  blood  of  their  crucified  Lord, 
and  while  their  own  lives  were  every  moment  exposed  to  the  rage 
of  persecution  ; — when  my  opponents  can  tell  me  what  actuated 
these  men,  I  shall  be  equally  ready  to  assign  a  reason  for  the  early 
rise  and  progress  of  prelacy. 

But  there  is  no  need  of  retreating  into  the  obscurity  of  conjecture, 


RISE  AND  PROGRESS  OF  PRELACY.  461 

when  causes  enough  to  satisfy  <jvery  mind  may  easily  be  assigned. 
If  Dr.  Bowden  does  not  know  that  there  are  multitudes  of  men,  in 
all  ages,  in  the  church,  and  out  of  it,  who  are  r?ady  to  court  dis- 
tinction, merely  for  distinction's  sake,  and  at  the  evident  hazard 
of  their  lives,  he  is  less  acquainted  both  with  human  nature  and  with 
history  than  I  have  been  accustomed  to  suppose  him.     But  this  is 
not  all.     It  is  a  notorious  fact,  notwithstanding  all  the  round  asser- 
tions of  Dr.  Bowden  to  the  contrary,  that  the  office  of  bishop,  even 
in  very  early  times,  had  much  to   attract  the  cupidity  as  well  as 
the  ambition  of  selfish  and  aspiring  men.     The  revenues  of  the 
primitive  church  were  large  and  alluring.  It  is  granted  that,  during 
the  first  three  centuries,  the  church  held  little  or  no  real  property; 
as  the  Roman  laws  did  not  allow  any  person  to  give  or  bequeath 
real  estates  to  ecclesiastical  bodies,   without  the  consent  of  the 
senate  or  the  Emperor.     The  contributions,  however,  which  were 
made  to  the  church,  for  the  support  of  the  clergy,  the  poor,  &c. 
were  immense.     During  the  apostolic  age,  the  proceeds  of  the  sale 
of  real  estates  were  devoted  to  ecclesiastical  and  charitable  pur- 
poses, and  laid  at  the  apostles'  feet.     We  find  the  gentile  churches 
contributing  liberally  to  the  relief  of  the  churches  of  Judea,  in 
Acts  xi.  29-  Rom.  xv.  26.  i  Corinth,  xvi.  1.  and  2  Corinth,  vin. 
The  same  liberality  manifested  itself  in  subsequent  times.*     So 
ample  were  the  funds  of  the  church  of  Rome,  about  the  middle  of 
the  second  century,  that  they  were  adequate  not  only  to  the  support 
of  her  own  clergy  and  poor  members  5  but  also  to  the  relief  of 
other  churches,  and  of  a  great  number  of  Christian  captives  in  the 
several  provinces,  and  of  such  as  were  condemned  to  the  mines.t 
Such  was  the  wealth  of  the  same  church,  in  the  third  century,  that 
it  was  considered  as  an  object  not  unworthy  of  imperial  rapacity. 

*  One  cause  of  the  liberality  of  the  primitive  Christians  in  their  con- 
tributions to  the  church,  was  the  notion  which  generally  prevailed,  that 
the  end  of  the  world  was  at  hand.  This  notion  was  adopted  by  some  of 
the  early  fathers,  and  propagated  among  the  people  with  great  diligence. 
Cyprian  taught,  in  his  day,  with  great  confidence,  that  the  dissolution  of 
the  world  was  but  a  few  years  distant.  Epist.  ad  Thibart.  The  tendency 
of  this  opinion  to  diminish  the  self-denial  of  parting  with  temporal  wealth 
is  obvious.  See  Father  Paul's  Hist,  of  Benefices  and  Revenues.  Chup.  II. 

f  Father  Paul's  History  of  Ecclesiastical  Benefices  and  Revenues, 
Chap.  in. 


462  LETTER  IX. 

By  order  of  the  Emperor  Decius,  the  Roman  deacon  Laurent  fas 
was  seized,  under  the  expectation  of  finding  in  his  possession  the 
treasures  of  the  church,  and  of  transferring  them  to  the  coffers  of 
the  Emperor  :  But  the  vigilant  deacon,  fearing  the  avarice  of  the 
tyrant,  had  distributed  them,  as  usual,  when  a  persecution  was 
expected.  Prudentius  .introduces  an  officer  of  the  Emperor,  thus 
addressing  the  deacon  :  Quod  Ccesaris  sets,  Ccesari  da,  nempe 
justum  postulo  ;  nifallor,  haudullam  luus  signat  Deus pecuniam. 
i.  e.  Give  to  Ccesar  what  you  know  to  be  his,  I  ask  what  is  just ; 
for  if  I  mistake  not,  your  God  coins  no  money.* 

Now  the  revenues  of  the  churches,  whether  great  or  small  were 
at  the  disposal  of  the  bishops.  The  deacons  executed  their  orders. 
Of  course  they  had  every  opportunity  of  enriching  themselves  at 
the  expense  of  the  church.  And  that  they  embraced  this  oppor- 
tunity, is  attested  by  Cyprian,  who  laments  the  fact,  and  is  of  opi- 
nion that  the  persecution  which  took  place  in  the  reign  of  Decius, 
was  intended  by  God  to  punish  a  guilty  people,  and  to  purge  this 
corruption  from  his  church.f  And  yet,  in  the  face  of  all  this  tes- 
timony, Dr.  Bowden  has  permitted  himself  to  assert,  that  there  was 
no  temptation,  either  before  or  during  the  age  of  Cyprian,  to  induce 
any  man  to  desire  the  office  of  a  bishop ;  and  especially  that  it 
was  impossible  for  any  to  be  moved  by  the  love  of  wealth  to  seek 
that  office,  because  no  acquisitions  of  that  kind  "  resulted  from  it, 
or  could  result  from  it  !"  It  is  really  amazing  that  gentlemen  can 
so  entirely  close  their  eyes  against  the  light  of  all  authentic  history. 
If  Dr.  Bowden  were  an  ardent  and  incautious  young  man  who  had 
but  lately  commenced  the  examination  of  this  subject,  he  might  be 
pardoned  on  the  score  of  ignorance ;  but  to  a  gentleman  of  his  long 
experience  and  standing  in  the  controversy,  it  is  difficult  to  suppose 
this  apology  applicable. 

One  of  the  arguments  which  I  adduced  in  support  of  the  gradual 
introduction  of  prelacy,  was  the  fact,  that  metropolitans,  or  arch- 
bishops,  though  acknowledged  on  all  hands  not  to  have  been  insti- 


*  Prudent,  in  Lib,  de  Coronis.    Father  Paul's  History  of  Ecclesiastical 
Benefices  and  Revenues,  Chap.  in. 

f  See  his  discourse  De  Lapsis,  before  quoted. 


RISE  AND  PROGRESS  OF    PRELACY.          463 

tuted  by  the  apostles,  were  yet  early  brought  in  by  human  ambi- 
tion ;  while,  at  the  same  time,  the  early  records  are  so  scanty,  that 
we  are  unable  to  pronounce  when  they  were  first  introduced. 

To  this  Dr.  Bowden  gives  two  answers.  Theirs*  is,  that  we 
can  decide,  with  certainty,  when  the  authority  of  metropolitans 
took  its  rise  :  And  the  second,  that  the  cases  are  by  no  means 
parallel,  and  that  the  argument,  even  if  the  facts  were  admitted,  is 
of  no  force. 

To  establish  the  first  point,  Dr.  B.  quotes  a  short  passage  from 
Dr.  Cave,  a  divine  of  the  eighteenth  century,  who  gives  it  as  his 
opinion,  that  metropolitans  were  introduced  "  not  long  after  the 
"  apostolic  age,  when  sects  and  schisms  broke  in  apace,  and  when 
t{  controversies  were  multiplied  between  particular  bishops."  But 
was  Cave  a  primitive  father  ?  What  authority  had  he  to  decide 
such  a  question  ?  And  what  did  he  mean  by  the  expression  "  not 
long  after  the  apostolic  age  ?  "  Did  he  mean  two,  three,  or  four 
centuries?  All  is  vague  and  conjectural.  Besides,  from  this  pas- 
sage it  leaks  out,  after  all  Dr.  Bowden' s  care  to  conceal  it,  or 
rather  his  explicit  denial  of  the  fact,  that  there  were  sects  and 
schisms,  andjarrings  among  the  bishops,  "  not  long  after  the  apos- 
tolic age."  In  support  of  the  same  assertion,  Dr.  Bowden  quotes 
a  longer  passage  from  Bingkam,  another  divine  of  the  eighteenth 
century,  who,  after  expressing  his  agreement  v/ith  Cave,  adds, 
"  Perhaps  the  office  of  metropolitan  took  its  rise  from  that  com- 
"  mon  respect  and  deference,  which  was  usually  paid  by  the  rest  of 
"  the  bishops  to  the  bishops  of  the  civil  metropolis  in  every  pro- 
"  vince."  He  then  produces,  what  Dr.  B.  calls  "  sufficient  evidence," 
that  this  office  existed  in  the  second  century ;  that  there  are  traces 
of  its  commencement  as  early  as  the  time  of  Irenaws',  that  it 
advanced  gradually  ;  and  that  it  was  not  until  about  the  time  of  the 
Council  of  Nice  that  the  term  metropolitan  came  irfto  frequent  use. 
Now,  though  Dr.  Bowden  contents  himself  witn  very  slender 
proof;  and  though  his  confident  conclusion,  that  "  there  is  not  the 
least  difficulty  in  determining  when  primates  or  metropolitans 
took  their  rise  in  the  Christian  Church,"  is,  in  the  connection  in 
which  it  stands,  truly  ludicrous ;  yet,  allowing  it  to  be  correct,  does 
not  every  discerning  reader  perceive  that  he  is  unwittingly  con- 
firming my  argument?  He  concedes,  that  metropolitans  were 
not  instituted  by  the  apostles;  and  he  also  concedes,  that  they 


•464  LETTER  IX. 

were  brought  in,  by  human  contrivance,  soon  after  the  apostolic 
age  ;  but  that  they  were  not  spoken  of  familiarly,  under  this  title, 
until  near  the  middle  of  the  fourth  century.  But  how  they  were 
introduced  ;  by  what  means  ;  whether  with  or  without  opposition^ 
neither  he,  nor  the  divines  whom  he  quotes  as  his  authorities,  have 
any  thing  more  than  conjecture  to  offer.  And  is  not  this  exactly 
the  ground  on  which  I  assert  the  fact  to  stand  ?  With  whom  is 
this  gentleman  contending  ? 

Dr.  Bowden  goes  further,  and  contends,  in  the  second  place, 
that,  "  even  if  it  were  impossible  to  determine  the  time  when  me- 
tropolitans first  appeared  in  the  church,  there  would  be  no  parallel 
between  this  difficulty,  and  the  one  relating  to  episcopacy/'  But 
why  no  parallel  ?  The  office  of  metropolitan  was  a  grade  of  eccle- 
siastical pre-eminence,  as  well  as  that  of  ordinary  bishop.  Now, 
if  it  be  granted,  that  the  former  office  was  introduced  by  human 
contrivance ;  that  it  was  gradually  brought  in ;  that  it  was  intro- 
duced without  any  known  opposition  and  noise ;  why  might  not 
the  same  facts  have  occurred  with  respect  to  prelacy  ?  Dr.  Bow- 
deny  indeed,  asserts,  that  the  office  of  metropolitan  was,  in  the 
beginning,  a  mere  presidency,  introduced  for  the  sake  of  conve- 
nience and  order  ;  that  in  this  stage  of  its  rise,  there  was  no  mate- 
rial encroachment  on  the  rights  of  others;  and,  of  course,  nothing 
that  had  a  tendency  to  excite  alarm,  resentment,  or  opposition. 
Arid  is  not  this  exactly  what  we  say  concerning  the  rise  of  prelacy  ? 
In  all  these  respects,  indeed,  Dr.  B.  would  persuade  us,  that  the 
rise  of  metropolitanism  was  wholly  unlike  that  of  prelacy.  But 
for  this  we  have  only  his  word.  He  does  not  produce  even  a 
shadow  of  proof.  On  the  contrary  we  maintain,  that  prelacy  arose, 
with  very  little  variation,  in  the  same  manner  in  which  he  represents 
metropolitanism  as  having  been  brought  in.  And  the  acknowledged 
fact,  that  the  latter  was  early  introduced,  without  exciting,  so  far 
as  we  know,  any  extensive  opposition  or  noise,  we  consider  as 
conclusive  evidence  that  the  former  might  have  arisen  in  the  same 
manner.  We  suppose,  that  the  first  steps,  in  both  cases,  were 
small,  and  studiously  ordered  so  as  to  excite  as  little  attention  as 
possible  ;  that  the  introduction  of  new  names  was,  for  a  consider- 
able time,  carefully  avoided  ;  and  that  the  object  was,  in  fact,  fully 
gained,  before  the  mask  was  thrown  off,  and  the  purpose  avowed. 

Dr.  B.  insists  that  the  rise  of  metropolitans  was  not  as  likely  to 


RISE  AND  PROGRESS  OF    PRELACY.  465 

excite  alarm  and  opposition  as  that  of  bishops.  But  why  not  ? 
Were  not  prelates  as  likely  to  perceive  and  take  the  alarm,  when 
some  of  their  own  number  assumed  a  superiority  over  the  rest,  as 
presbyters  were,  when  some  of  their  number  gradually  gained  a 
pre-eminence  among  the  brethren  ?  Were  prelates  less  discerning, 
less  awake  to  encroachments,  or  less  conscientious  in  guarding 
against  them,  than  presbyters  ?  But,  says  Dr.  Eowden,  in  the 
case  of  metropolitans,  there  was  no  usurpation  of  any  particular 
rite  or  power ;  whereas,  in  the  rise  of  prelacy,  according  to  the 
ideas  of  Presbyterians,  there  was  a  direct  usurpation  of  the  ordain- 
ing and  confirming  power,  which  before  belonged  to  all  presbyters 
in  common.  The  latter,  therefore,  in  his  opinion,  was  much  less 
likely  to  gain  undisputed  admittance  than  the  former.  But  in  this 
reasoning  Dr.  Bowden  betrays  a  total  misunderstanding  of  what 
Presbyterians  believe.  They  do  not  suppose,  or  admit,  that  the 
usurpation  of  the  ordaining  power  was  theirs*  step,  or  even  among 
the  first  steps  in  the  rise  of  prelacy.  They  suppose  that  an  occa- 
sional and  then  a  stated  presidency  were  the  first  steps;  and 
that  the  power  of  ordaining  was  not  taken  entirely  out  of  the 
hands  of  presbyters,  until  several  centuries  after  the  claims  of  pre- 
lacy commenced. 

The  cases,  then,  after  all  that  Dr.  Bowden  has  said  to  the  con- 
trary, are  strictly  parallel.  The  time  and  manner  of  the  rise  of 
metropolitans,  are  left  as  completely  undefined  in  early  history,  as 
are  the  time  and  manner  of  the  rise  of  prelates.  In  both  cases,  by 
a  careful  comparison  of  testimony,  we  can  come  with  certainty, 
near  the  truth,  but  nothing  more.  In  both  cases,  the  rise  was 
evidently  gradual.  In  both  cases,  the  first  steps  were  small  and 
dictated,  as  those  concerned  were  made  to  believe,  by  convenience, 
expediency,  and  even  necessity,  rather  than  by  ambition.  And, 
in  both  cases,  it  was  not  until  several  hundred  years,  when  long 
habit  and  prescription  had  reconciled  every  mind  to  the  usurpation, 
that  its  claims  were  openly  and  unreservedly  urged. 

It  is  of  some  importance  to  advert  to  two  or  three  other  facts. 
Although  Metropolitans,  when  first  introduced,  appear  to  have 
been,  as  Dr.  B.  supposes,  nothing  more  than  mere  presidents  or 
moderators  ;  yet  it  is  manifest  that  they  very  soon  became  some- 

3  N 


466  LETTER  IX. 

thing  more.  I  know  not  when  those  writings,  called  the  Apos- 
tolical Canons,  were  composed.  Dr.  B.  thinks  in  the  second  and 
third  centuries.  But  one  thing  1  know,  that,  whenever  they  were 
composed,  the  34th  canon  decrees,  "  that  the  bishops  of  every 
"  nation  ought  to  know  him  who  isjirst  among  them,  and  acknow- 
"  ledge  him  for  their  head,  and  do  nothing  of  moment  without 
"  his  consent,  and  he  nothing  without  their*  s."  Here  is  a  power 
greatly  exceeding  that  of  a  mere  presiding  equal.  How  was  this 
power  acquired  ?  How  could  it  be  acquired  so  soon,  and  when, 
if  we  may  believe  Dr.  B.  no  such  thing  as  clerical  ambition  exist- 
ed ?  Above  all,  how  could  it  be  acquired  so  quietly,  and  with  so 
little  opposition,  as  that  the  several  steps  of  its  progress  should  not 
be  found  recorded  by  the  early  fathers  ?  Again,  in  the  age  of 
Cyprian,  we  find  sub-deacons  and  readers  spoken  of  as  distinct 
orders  of  clergy,  who  have  each  a  distinct  ordination.*  How 
could  these  orders  be  introduced,  in  an  age,  which,  according  to 
Dr.  B.  was  so  perfectly  pure,  and  so  strict  in  its  adherence  to 
apostolic  precedent?  How  could  readers  and  sub-deacons  be 
ranked  among  the  clergy  ?  This  single  fact  is  enough  to  show, 
that  before  the  age  of  Cyprian,  undisguised  innovation  had  found 
its  way  into  the  church  ;  and  also  that,  when  deacons  are  spoken 
of,  by  some  of  the  fathers,  as  ministers  of  the  word,  and  as  of  the 
order  of  clergy,  it  affords  not  the  smallest  presumption  that  such 
was  the  apostolic  model. 

As  another  proof,  that  a  spirit  of  ambition  and  of  ecclesiastical 
encroachment,  early  began  to  appear  in  the  church,  I  mentioned 
the  rise  and  progress  of  the  Papacy.  I  observed,  that  the  anti- 
christian  claims  of  the  bishop  of  Home  began  as  early  as  the  time 
of  Irenaius,  and  might  be  considered  as  gradually  rising  from  that 
period,  until  he  was  at  length  established  and  acknowledged  as 
universal  bishop.  And  I  observed,  moreover,  that,  "  although 
"  the  most  impartial  and  learned  divines  may  and  do  differ  among 
"  themselves  in  fixing  the  several  dates  of  the  rise,  progress,  and 
"  establishment  of  this  great  spiritual  usurper  5  yet  the  fact,  that 
"  he  did  thus  rise  and  advance,  and  erect  a  tyrannical  throne  in  the 

*  Cyprian.  Epist.  8.  and  39, 


RISE  AND  PROGRESS  OF  PRELACY.          467 

"  church,  contrary  to  all  that  might  have  been  expected  both  from 
"  the  piety  and  the  selfishness  of  the  early  Christians,  is  doubted 
"  by  none." 

In  answer  to  this  argument  Dr.  Bowden  ventures  to  assert,  that 
"  there  is  not,  before  the  seventh  century,  the  least  trace  of  any 
"  system  of  policy  in  the  Holy  See,  (that  of  Rome,}  to  establish 
"  its  claim  of  superiority  over  other  bishops."  Of  an  assertion  of 
this  kind,  I  really  feel  at  a  loss  what  to  think,  or  what  to  say. 
That  it  is  an  assertion  which  directly  contradicts  all  history,  I  need 
not  stay  to  demonstrate.  Every  well-informed  man  knows  it  to 
be  so.  The  only  question  which  can  arise  is,  how  Dr.  Bowden 
could  have  ventured  to  advance  it  ? 

By  the  papacy,  strictly  speaking,  is  meant  that  claim  which 
the  bishop  of  Rome  has  long  made  of  being,  as  such,  the  successor 
of  Peter,  superior  to  all  other  bishops,  and  the  visible  head  of  the 
church.  No  man  in  his  senses  ever  supposed  that  this  system  of 
ecclesiastical  usurpation  was  either  claimed  or  acknowledged  all  at 
once.  It  had  a  rise,  a  progress,  and  a  completion.  That  it  did 
not  reach  its  summit  until  the  seventh  century,  I  have  no  hesita- 
tion in  granting.  Nor  have  I  ever  penned  a  sentence  inconsistent 
with  this  acknowledgment.  But  that  it  began  to  rise  several 
centuries  before,  every  protestant  historian  that  I  have  ever  met 
with,  has  unequivocally  stated  :  And  that  it  made  slow,  but  steady 
progress  from  the  time  of  Victor  to  that  of  Boniface,  insomuch, 
that  at  the  end  of  every  successive  century,  it  was  perceived  to 
have  sensibly  gained  ground,  I  took  for  granted,  before  I  saw  Dr. 
Bowden's  book,  that  every  man  who  regarded  his  reputation,  either 
for  discernment  or  candour,  would  readily  allow.  Nay,  Dr.  Boio- 
den  himself,  if  I  understand  him,  acknowledges  that  the  power  of 
popes  was  gradually  assumed  ;  for  "  the  several  epochs  of  their 
increasing  power,"  he  tells  us,  have  been  so  distinctly  marked, 
that  we  can  be  at  no  loss  to  ascertain  them.  And  yet  he  says, 
"  there  was  not,  before  the  seventh  century,  the  least  trace  of  any 
"  system  of  policy  in  the  Holy  See  to  establish  its  claim  of  supe- 
"  riority  over  other  bishops  !"  Unless  this  gentleman  can  retreat 
behind  some  unusual  signification  of  terms,  I  know  not  how  he 
can  escape  very  serious  charges  from  every  discerning  reader. 

I  consider  the  following  facts,  then,  as  perfectly  established— 


468  LETTER  JX. 

viz.  that  as  early  as  the  second  and  third  centuries  there  was  quite 
enough  clerical  ambition  in  the  church  to  account  for  the  rise  of 
prelacy ;  that  the  acknowledged  rise  of  metropolitans,  during  that 
period,  is  a  proof,  at  once,  that  there  was  a  disposition  among  many 
of  the  clergy  to  aspire  after  pre-eminence,  and  that  it  was  by  no 
means  an  impossible  thing  so  far  to  hoodwink  and  cajole  others  > 
as  to  obtain  it ;  and  that  the  beginning,  progress,  and  establishment 
of  the  papal  power,  is  quite  as  difficult  to  be  accounted  for  on  epis- 
copal principles,  as  the  introduction  of  prelacy  by  human  authori- 
ty. .But,  if  it  be  fact,  that  there  were  materials  enough  in  the  cler- 
gy of  that  age,  and  circumstances  enough  in  the  times,  to  generate 
irregular  ambition  ;  and  if  other  facts  demonstrate  that  they  did 
cherish  this  ambition  ;  that  they  did  thus  aspire  and  encroach  ; 
then  we  are  surely  warranted  in  inferring  that  the  human  invention 
and  introduction  of  prelacy,  was  not  only  a  possible,  but  a  very 
probable  event. 

Among  the  numerous  facts  which  prove  that  diocesan  episcopa- 
cy is  an  innovation  on  the  apostolic  model,  and  that  it  was  gradu- 
ally introduced,  I  mentioned  in  my  former  letters,  that  ministerial 
parity  continued  longest  in  those  parts  of  the  church  which  were 
at  the  greatest  distance  from  the  capital  cities.     As  an  instance,  to 
illustrate  this  remark,  I  observed,  that  "  the  churches  in  Scotland 
"  remained  Presbyterian  in  their  government,  from  the  introduc- 
"  tion  of  Christianity  into  that  country,  in  the  second  century,  until 
u  thejifth  century,  when  Palladius  succeeded  in  introducing  dio- 
"  cesan  bishops."     This  fact  Dr.  Bowden  entirely  denies.  Let  us 
see  on  what  evidence  it  rests.     That  the  gospel  was  introduced 
into  North  Britain  before  thejifth  century,  is  evident  from  Ter- 
tullian,  who  says,  "  The  places  of  Britain  to  which  the  Romans 
"  could  not  have  access,  are  notwithstanding  subject  to  Christ."* 
Fordon,  a  Scotch  historian,  who  wrote  in  the  fourteenth  century, 
and  who  was  no  Presbyterian,  on  the  one  hand  declares,  (as  Dr. 
B.  acknowledges)  that  the  Scots  received  the  Christian  faith  in  the 
year  of  our  Lord  203  ;  and  on  the  other  asserts,  (what  Dr.  B.  has 
not  acknowledged,)   that  "  Before  the  coming  of  Palladius,  the 
"  Scots,  fpllowing  the  custom  of  the  primitive  church,  had  teachers 

*  Contra.  Jud.  Cap,  vii. 


RISE  AND  PROGRESS  OF  PRELACY.  469 

«  of  the  faith,  and  dispensers  of  the  sacraments,  who  were  only 
"  presbyters  or  monks."*     This  statement  is  confirmed  by  Major, 
another  Scottish  historian,  who  wrote  about  the  beginning  of  the 
sixteenth  century,  and  who  lived  and  died  a  friend  of  prelacy.  He 
declares,  "  The  Scots  were  instructed  in  the  faith,  by  priests  and 
"  monks,  without  bishops."!     Boethius,  a  third  historian  of  Scot- 
land, who  was  contemporary  with  Major,  and  also  a  prelatist,  still 
more  explicitly  says,  "  Palladius  was  the  FIRST  who  exercised  any 
"  hierarchial  power  among  the  Scots,  being  ordained  their  bishop 
"  by  the  pope,  whereas,  before,  their  priests  were,  by  the  suffrages 
"  of  the  people,  chosen  out  of  the  monks  and  culdees."|     Pros- 
per  Aquitanceus,  in  his  Chronicle,  has  these  words — "  Palladius 
"  is  ordained  by  Pope  Ccdestine,  for  the  Scots,  who  had  already 
66  believed  in  Christ,  and  is  sent  to  them  to  be  iheirjirst  bishop." 
Palladius,  according  to  this  writer,  did  not  introduce  the  gospel 
among  the  Scots  ;  they  believed  in  Christ  before  he  was  sent  to 
them  ;  but  he  was  the  Jirst  bishop,  or  prelate,  that  they  ever  had. 
The  same  fact  is  attested  by  Cardinal  Baronius,  who  says,  "  All 
"  men  agree  that  this  nation,  (the  Scots,}  had  Palladius  their  FIRST 
"  bishop  from  Pope  Ccelestine"$ 

Dr.  Bowden  has  no  other  method  of  evading  the  force  of  this 
evidence,  but  by  insinuating,  (as  others,  who  were  perplexed  by 
the  argument,  had  done  before  him,)  that  by  the  Scots  these  wri- 
ters meant  the  Irish  !  This  evasion  is  too  ridiculous  to  be  seriously 
refuted.  It  contradicts  the  most  authentic  history. ||  And  if  Dr. 
B.  will  take  the  trouble  to  consult  his  own  episcopal  historians 
Skinner  and  Goodall^  he  will  be  satisfied,  that  in  adopting  this 
notion,  he  has  been  led  astray  by  blind  guides.  But,  suppose  that 
it  were  even  so ;  what  advantage  to  Dr.  Howden's  cause  would  re- 
sult from  this  discovery  ?  Would  it  not  be  a  fact  equally  against 
him,  if  it  were  found  that  the  churches  of  Ireland  instead  of  Scot- 

*Hist.Ub.  iii.  Cap.  8. 

f  De  Gestis.  Scotor.  Lib.  ii.  Cap.  2.  *  Scot.  Hist.  Lib.vi. 

§jtnnal.  429. 

fl  Cardinal  Baronius  expressly  distinguishes  between  the  visits  of 
Palladius  to  Scotland,  and  Ireland.  His  visit  to  the  former  country,  he 
mentions  in  the  manner  cited  above:  that  to  the  latter,  he  speaks  of  in  a 
subsequent  paragraph. 

t  Skinner's  Ecclesiastical  History  of  Scotland,  Letter  i.  Goodall's  Introduc- 
tion to  the  History'and  Antiquities  of  Scotland,  Chapters  2. 7,  and  16. 


470  LETTER  IX. 

land,  were  under  the  government  of  presbyters,  without  prelates, 
for  more  than  200  years  after  their  being  first  planted  ? 

Dr.  Bowden,  in  attempting  to  show  the  improbability  that  pre- 
lacy was  introduced  after  the  apostolic  age,  as  a  measure  of  human 
expediency,  still  insists  that,  if  it  were  introduced  at  all,  it  must 
have  been  very  suddenly.  To  corroborate  this  assertion,  he  repre- 
sents some  of  the  ablest  Presbyterian  divines  who  have  written  on 
the  subject,  as  acknowledging  that  prelacy  had  been  brought  in  as 
early  as  the  middle  of  the  second  century.  He  assures  us,  more 
than  once,  that,  among  others,  the  learned  Blondel  concedes  the 
existence  of  prelacy  as  early  as  the  year  of  our  Lord  140,  which 
was  within  fifty  years  of  the  death  of  the  last  apostle.  This  is  a 
misrepresentation  ;  and  a  misrepresentation  so  extraordinary,  that 
I  know  not  how  to  account  for  it  but  by  supposing  that  Dr.  Bow- 
den  never  saw  BlondeVs  far-famed  work.  Whatever  Dr.  B.  may 
say  to  the  contrary,  Blondel  does  not  make  such  a  concession  as  he 
imputes  to  him.  The  passage  to  which  Dr.  B.  no  doubt,  refers,  is 
found  in  the  preface  to  the  Apology  ;  and  its  import  is,  that  about 
the  year  140,  according  to  the  best  light  the  author  had  been  able 
to  attain,  one  of  the  steps  toward  the  establishment  of  prelacy  was 
taken,  which  consisted  in  choosing  standing  moderators.  If  by 
bishops  be  understood,  not  what  the  scriptures  and  the  Presbyte- 
rian church  mean  by  that  title,  but  what  Dr.  Bowden  and  his  friends 
mean,  aji  order  of  clergy,  who  were  alone  invested  with  the  power 
of  ordination  ;  then  it  is  perfectly  manifest  to  all  who  ever  perused 
Blondel's  work,  that  its  grand  scope  is  to  show  the  direct  contrary 
of  that  which  Dr.  Bowden  ascribes  to  him  ;  and  that  for  this  pur- 
pose, he  quotes  Cyprian,  Tertullian,  Origen,  and  still  later  fathers, 
who  lived  long  after  the  year  140,  to  show  that,  in  their  day 
episcopacy,  in  the  prelatical  sense  of  the  word,  was  not  introduced. 
In  short,  Blondel's  whole  book  is  written  to  prove  that  prelacy 
was  not  an  apostolic  institution ;  that  it  was  brought  into  the 
church  gradually  ;  and  that  it  was  several  hundred  years  in  gain- 
ing an  establishment.  Considering  the  frequency  and  positiveness 
with  which  Dr,  Bowden  undertakes  to  state  the  testimony  of  Blon- 
del, he  certainly  ought  to  have  understood  it  better. 

Dr.  B.  also  asserts  that  Salmasius,  an  acute  and  learned  advo- 
cate of  ministerial  parity,  makes  a  concession  of  the  same  kind 
with  that  which  he  ascribes  to  Blondel.  I  have  never  seen  the 


RISE  AND  PROGRESS  OF  PRELACY.  471 

Walo  Messalinus  of  the  celebrated  Presbyterian  ;  and  cannot  un- 
dertake with  confidence  to  say  that  Dr.  B.  has  misrepresented 
him  also ;  but  I  strongly  suspect  this  to  be  the  case,  and  shall  cer- 
tainly require,  after  all  that  I  have  seen,  better  evidence  of  the 
contrary  than  his  assertion.  The  learned  Chamier  and  Du  Moulin 
are  also  quoted  by  Dr.  B.  as  making  still  more  pointed  and  impor- 
tant concessions.  But  as  he  has  not  chosen  to  inform  us  where 
these  concessions  are  to  be  found,  I  consider  myself  as  liberated 
from  all  further  obligation  to  notice  them.*  I  am  verily  persuaded, 
however,  that  he  has  been  deceived  by  the  representation  of 
others,  and  that  he  entirely  mistakes  the  opinions  of  those 
writers. 

After  carefully  reviewing  all  that  Dr.  Bowden  has  said  on  the 
rise  and  progress  of  prelacy,  I  only  think  it  necessary  to  offer  and 
illustrate  a  single  additional  remark.  It  is  this.  That  the  indis- 
criminate application  of  the  titles  bishop  and  presbyter,  during  the 
Jirst  and  second,  and  occasionally,  as  Dr.  B.  himself  acknowledges, 
in  the  third  century,  furnishes,  in  my  view,  a  most  powerful  argu- 
ment in  support  of  ministerial  parity,  and  that  in  a  point  of  light 
which  I  have  not  hitherto  stated.  The  use  of  terms  is  to  express 
distinct  ideas.  The  use  of  official  titles  is  to  express  in  single  terms 
official  rank  and  powers.  Now  it  is  conceded  by  Dr.  Boicden,  and 
by  Episcopalians  generally,  that  the  titles  bishop  and  presbyter 
were  applied  indiscriminately,  in  the  days  of  the  apostles,  to  de- 
signate the  same  order  of  clergy  ;  and  that  both  are  most  frequent- 
ly applied,  in  the  New  Testament,  to  what  they  call  the  second 
order,  or  the  pastors  of  single  churches.  They  contend  that  the 
apostles  themselves  were,  strictly  speaking,  the  prelates  of  the 
apostolic  church ;  and  that  the  title  of  bishop  was,  in  fact,  then 
applied  precisely  as  the  Presbyterians  now  apply  it,  to  every  min- 
ister of  the  gospel  who  had  a  pastoral  charge.  This  they  all 
explicitly  grant.  But  they  insist  that,  in  process  of  time,  as  the 
apostles  died,  the  title  of  apostle  was  laid  aside,  and  that  of  bishop 
began  to  take  its  place,  and  to  be  restricted  to  an  order  of  clergy 
superior  to  pastors,  and  succeeding  to  the  apostolic  pre-eminence. 

*  It  is  really  not  a  little  extraordinary  that  Dr.  Bowden,  after  all  his 
promises  to  the  contrary,  should  so  frequently  be  guilty  of  this  conduct. 


472  LETTER  IX. 

But  does  not  all  this  carry  improbability  on  the  very  face  of  it  ?  Is 
it  likely  that  the  inspired  apostles,  or  men  immediately  taught  by 
them,  when  the  churches,  for  more  than  half  a  century,  had  been 
accustomed  to  employ  a  certain  title  to  designate  a  particular  class 
of  ecclesiastical  officers,  would  have  adopted  that  very  title  to  de- 
signate a  totally  different  class,  and  that  when  all  the  riches  of 
language  were  open  to  their  selection  ?  Can  it  be  supposed,  above 
all,  that  this  would  have  been  done  in  a  case  in  which,  if  we  believe 
our  episcopal  brethren,  the  distinction  of  orders  has  always  been 
essential  to  the  very  being  of  the  church  ?  It  cannot  be  supposed. 
Had  their  object  been  to  produce  confusion  of  ideas,  and  perpetual 
inconvenience  in  the  expression  of  them,  they  could  scarcely  have 
adopted  a  more  direct  method  to  attain  their  end. 

But,  on  the  other  hand,  supposing  prelacy  not  to  have  been  an 
apostolic  institution,  but  to  have  been  brought  in  by  human  ambition, 
and  that  in  a  gradual  and  almost  insensible  manner,  as  we  con- 
tend; then  nothing  is  more  natural  than  this  indiscriminate  use  of 
official  titles  in  early  times.  The  most  effectual  way  to  disguise  a 
new  office,  and  to  prevent  the  mass  of  the  people  from  suspecting 
it  of  either  encroachment  or  innovation,  was  to  give  it  an  old  name. 
When,  therefore,  one  of  the  pastors,  in  a  city  or  district,  began  to 
assume  pre-eminent  honours  and  powers  over  his  colleagues,  instead 
of  taking  some  new  and  high  sounding  title,  it  was'an  obvious  dic- 
tate of  policy  to  content  himself  with  a  title  which  was  common 
to  his  brethren.  This  policy  was  accordingly  adopted.  The  plain 
title  of  bishop,  which  was  before  given  to  all  pastors,  and  to  which 
the  people  had  been  long  accustomed,  was  still  the  only  one  which 
the  aspiring  individual  ventured  to  employ.  But  it  obviously  would 
not  have  served  the  purpose  either  of  convenience  or  ambition  to 
continue  this  community  of  title  when  a  new  order  had  arisen  in 
the  church.  Some  alteration  of  ecclesiastical  language  was  neces- 
sary for  the  sake  of  being  understood;  ar?d  it  was  equally  necessary 
that  the  alteration  should  be  such  as  not  to  alarm  or  offend.  The 
consequence  was,  that  the  ordinary  pastors  gradually  dropped  the 
title  of  bishop,  leaving  it  to  be  the  appropriate  title  of  those  who 
had  succeeded  in  raising  themselves  above  the  rest,  and  consenting 
to  be  called  presbyters  or  elders  only. 

When,  therefore,  our  episcopal  brethren  grant,  as  they  all  do, 
that  the  titles  of  bishop  and  presbyter,  in  the  days  of  the  apostles, 


RISE  AND   PROGRESS  OF  PRELACY.  473 

were  interchangeably  applied  to  the  same  class  of  officers,  and  those 
ordinary  pastors  of  the  church  ;  when  they  grant,  as  they  also 
universally  do,  that  the  former  of  these  titles  was  gradually  disused 
by  ordinary  pastors  and  appropriated  to  prelates ;  and  when  they 
further  concede,  as  they  do  with  one  voice,  that  the  process  of  - 
dropping  this  title  on  the  part  of  the  former,  and  appropriating  it 
on  the  part  of  the  latter,  took  up  a  period  of  more  than  a  hundred 
years  after  the  death  of  the  apostles  ; — I  think  no  candid  man  can 
hesitate  to  conclude,  that  the  necessity  of  this  change  in  ecclesias- 
tical titles,  arose  from  the  introduction  of  an  order  of  officers  be- 
fore unknown  in  the  church. 

What  confirms  this  reasoning  is,  that  we  certainly  know  facts 
of  a  similar  kind  to  have  taken  place  very  early.  Dr.  Bowden 
himself  asserts  that  although  metropolitans  existed,  in  fact,  in  the 
second  century,  yet  that  the  use  of  this  distinctive  title,  was  but 
little  known  before  the  council  ofMce,  in  the  fourth  century. 
It  is  certain  that  the  title  of  pope  was  frequently  applied  to 
pastors  in  general,  as  early  as  the  third  century.  We  find  Cy- 
prian repeatedly  called  by  this  title,  in  the  epistles  addressed  to  him. 
It  was  not  until  a  considerable  time  afterwards,  that  the  Roman 
pontiff  succeeded  in  appropriating  to  himself  the  title  of  THE  pope, 
by  way  of  eminence.  These  examples  are  exactly  in  point.  A 
policy  which  we  know  to  have  bfeen  adopted  in  other  cases,  we 
have  every  reason  to  believe  was  adopted  in  that  under  considera- 
tion. In  short,  our  doctrine  concerning  the  rise  and  progress  of 
prelacy  is  not  only,  in  itself,  natural  and  probable ;  but  it  is  so  re- 
markably confirmed  by  early  history,  and  especially  by  a  variety 
of  minute  facts  incidentally  recorded,  that  my  only  surprise 
is,  how  any  candid  mind  can  withstand  the  evidence  in  its 
favour. 

3  O 


(  474  ) 


LETTER    X. 


MISCELLANEOUS  REMARKS.— CONCLUSION. 


CHRISTIAN  BRETHREN, 

I  HAVE  now  nearly  completed  my  review  of  such  parts  of  Dr. 
Bowderi's  volumes,  and  of  Mr.  How's  pamphlet,  as  appear  to  me 
worthy  of  notice.  I  have,  indeed,  passed  over  many  passages  in 
both,  which  might  justly  have  been  made  the  objects  of  severe 
criticism  ;  but  which  I  considered  as  either  of  too  little  importance 
to  demand  animadversion,  or  so  obviously  erroneous,  as  to  leave 
no  unprejudiced  reader  of  the  least  discernment  in  danger  of  being 
led  astray  by  them.  It  only  remains  that  T  make  a  few  miscella- 
neous remarks,  and  then  close  a  controversy  which  I  unfeignedly 
regret  that  there  should  ever  have  been  a  necessity  of  begin 
ning. 

It  was  my  intention  to  add  another  letter  on  the  concessions  of 
Episcopalians,  for  the  purpose  of  vindicating  and  establishing  what 
I  had  before  advanced  under  this  head  5*  and  also  of  presenting  a 

*  Dr.  Bowden  has  made  an  insinuation  with  regard  to  one  of  the  episco- 
pal concessions  cited  in  my  work,  of  which  it  is  proper  to  take  notice. 
He  says  he  has  examined  Jewel's  Defence  of  his  Apology,  and  cannot  find 
the  passage  which  I  profess  to  quote  from  that  work,  in  my  seventh 
letter.  He  therefore  infers  that  I  have  either  taken  the  quotation  at  se- 
cond hand,  on  the  authority  of  some  person  who  has  blundered  in  the  bu- 
siness; or  that  my  references  are  to  a  different  edition  from  that  which 
he  has  consulted.  I  can  assure  this  learned  professor,  who  has,  it  must 
be  confessed,  much  reason  to  plume  himself  on  the  fairness  and  accuracy 


CONCLUSION.  475 

number  of  additional  concessions  from  the  works  of  eminent  epis- 
copal writers.  To  fulfil  the  latter  purpose,  I  had  made  a  large 
collection  of  extracts  from  the  works  of  Bishop  Jewel,  Bishop 
Andrews,  Bishop  Morton,  Bishop  Hall,  Bishop  Taylor,  Bishop 
Burnet,  Bishop  Warburton,  Dr.  Jorton,  and  several  other  prelates 
and  divines,  all  containing  sentiments  very  different  from  those  of 
Dr.  Bowden  and  Mr.  How,  and  making  concessions  of  the  most 
decisive  kind.  But  having  already  drawn  out  this  work  to  a  length 
greatly  beyond  my  original  design,  I  am  constrained  to  suppress 
the  proposed  letter,  and  to  content  myself  with  the  episcopal  con- 
cessions already  laid  before  the  public. 

But  really,  independent  of  the  fear  of  trespassing  on  the  patience 
of  my  readers,  there  is  little  use  in  collecting  testimony  for  such 
opponents  as  Dr.  Bowden  and  Mr.  How.  However  abundant  and 
pointed  it  may  be,  they  appear  to  find  no  difficulty  in  persuading 
themselves  that  it  is  of  no  value.  The  unceremonious  manner  in 
which  Dr.  B.  rejects  testimony  is  amusing.  The  testimony  of 
Archbishop  Grindal  is  set  aside  on  the  ground  of  his  being  "  some- 
what fanatically  inclined,"  and  "  lax  in  his  discipline."  The 
testimony  of  Wicklife,  on  the  ground  of  his  being  supposed  to 
have  embraced  error  as  to  other  points.  The  testimony  of  Dr. 
Raignolds  is  rejected,  because,  though  a  regular  member  of  the 
Church  of  England,  he  was  a  Puritan  at  heart.  The  testimony 
of  Archbishop  Usher  is  pronounced  to  consist  only  in  a  scholastic 
distinction,  which  dull  Presbyterians  have  not  perceived  ;  the 
difference  between  him  and  other  Episcopalians  being  only  ver- 
bal." That  of  Bishop  Stilling fieet,  upon  the  ground  of  the  imma- 
turity of  a  juvenile  mind,  the  visionary  speculations  of  which  were 
corrected  by  age.  That  of  Archbishop  Tillotson,  because  he  was 
"  a  very  moderate  churchman," — "  a  sort  of  neutral  man,"  and 
withal  "  suspected  of  Arianism  and  Universalism."  That  of 
Bishop  Croft,  because  his  name  is  so  obscure  that  not  one  of  the 
Episcopal  clergy  of  this  city  ever  heard  of  him  before  5  and  because 

of  his  quotations,  that  I  possess  a  copy  of  the  work  from  which  my  cita- 
tion was  made;  that  my  edition  is,  like  that  which  he  professes  to  have 
consulted  with  so  much  care,  (a.  folio,  printed  in  1570,)  and  that  I  am 
ready,  whenever  he  will  please  to  favour  me  with  a  visit,  to  show  him 
the  very  words  which  I  have  quoted,  in  the  very  page  referred  to  as 
containing1  them. 


476  LETTER  X. 

he  was  "  a  man  of  very  comprehensive  principles,  and  an  enemy 
of  all  creeds  and  subscriptions."  That  of  Mosheim,  because  "  he 
had  the  system  of  his  own  church  to  maintain."*  But  when  testi- 
mony is  adduced  which  cannot  be  set  aside  by  any  such  frivolous 
pretext,  it  is  boldly  pronounced  "  worthless,"  "  of  no  value," 
perfectly  "  destitute  of  force,"  &c.  Nothing  can  be  drawn  from 
testimony.  It  is  waste  of  time  and  labour  to  collect  it. 

Mr.  How's  mode  of  treating  the  concessions  of  the  Episcopa- 
lians, is  still  more  ludicrous.  He  complains  that  I  have  produced 
extracts  only  from  between  thirty  and  forty  writers  ;  pronounces 
this  a  number  too  trifling  to  be  regarded  as  of  any  weight;  and 
expresses  a  suspicion  that  he  could  present  a  much  larger  list  of 
Presbyterian  writers  who  have  opposed  the  doctrines  of  their  own 
church. — In  answer  to  this  plea,  I  will  only  say,  that  when  Mr. 
How  shall  present  me  with  an  equally  long  list  of  standard  Presby- 
terian writers,  who  are  praised,  quoted,  studied,  and  made  the 
guides  of  theological  students,  and  who  at  the  same  time  oppose 
our  fundamental  doctrines,  I  shall  then  acknowledge  that  those 
doctrines  are  not  the  doctrines  of  the  Presbyterian  Church. 

Were  there  time  to  go  over  in  detail  the  extracts  from  Episcopal 
writers  which  I  have  presented  as  concessions,  it  would  be  easy  to 
show  that  almost  all  the  glosses  of  Dr.  Bowden  and  Mr.  How  are 


*  If  the  testimony  of  Mosheim  is  to  be  rejected  on  this  ground,  then 
the  testimony  of  all  the  Episcopalians  quoted  by  Dr.  B.  himself,  must 
be  set  aside  on  the  same  ground.  Will  he  agree  to  this?  Besides,  I 
thought  Dr.  Bowden  had  assured  us  that  the  Lutheran  church  is  Episco- 
pal ;  and  yet  Dr.  Mosheim's  testimony  against  Episcopacy  is  to  be  re- 
jected, because  he  had  "the  system  of  his  own  church  to  maintain!" 
The  truth  is,  the  testimony  of  Mosheim  and  of  other  Lutheran  divines  on 
this  subject  is  peculiarly  weighty:  for  while  they  have  in  their  church 
a  sort  of  qualified  Episcopacy;  and  while  they  have  as  strong  a  tempta- 
tion as  other  churches  to  place  their  constitution  on  the  footing  of 
divine  right;  they  unanimously  grant  now,  what  they  have  unanimously 
granted  since  the  days  of  Luthert  that  prelacy  is  not  a  divine  or  apostolic 
institution;  that  it  was  introduced  after  the  days  of  the  apostles;  and 
that  it  rests  on  the  ground  of  human  expediency  alone.  This  fact  will 
weigh  more,  with  every  impartial  inquirer,  than  all  that  the  collected 
learning  and  zeal  of  the  divines  of  the  church  of  England  have  ever 
advanced  in  favour  of  Episcopacy,  because  "  they  have  the  system  of 
their  own  church  to  maintain." 


CONCLUSION.  477 

either  irrelevant  or  worse.  But  such  a  process  would  be  an  un- 
reasonable trespass  on  your  patience.  I  have  already  given  a 
specimen  of  the  mode  of  answering  adopted  by  the  former  of  these 
gentlemen,  in  the  case  of  Bishop  Jewel.  The  latter  is  no  less  vul- 
nerable in  a  variety  of  instances.  He  tells  us,  for  example,  (p. 
56.)  that  Archbishop  Usher  pronounces  Presbyterian  ordination  to 
be  schismatical,  in  all  cases  excepting  that  of  necessity  alone.  This 
is  not  true.  Usher  says  neither  this,  nor  any  thing  like  it.  He  says, 
"  the  ordinations  made  by  such  presbyters  as  have  severed  them- 
"  selves  from  those  bishops,  unto  whom  they  had  sworn  canonical 
"  obedience,  cannot  possibly  by  me  be  excused  from  being  schis- 
"matical;"  immediately  after  which  he  goes  on  to  say,  that  he 
"  loves  and  honours"  the  Presbyterian  churches  of  Holland  and 
France,  as  "  true  members  of  the  church  universal  ;  and  that  he 
would  with  pleasure  receive  the  sacrament  from  the  hands  of  the 
ministers  in  either.* 

My  argument  drawn  from  the  practical  influence  of  prelacy  ', 
has,  as  I  fully  expected,  both  embarrassed  and  of  ended  my  oppo- 
nents. But,  after  all  their  impatience  and  irritation  under  it,  and 
all  their  cavils  against  it,  I  still  think  it  a  sound  and  irresistible 
argument.  If  the  Episcopal  Church,  be  the  only  true  church,  the 
only  denomination  of  professing  Christians  who  are  "  in  covenant 
with  God,"  then  the  demand  that  they  should  exhibit  more  of  the 
distinguishing  character  of  God's  covenant  people,  viz.  universal 
holiness,  is  surely  a  reasonable  demand.  In  truth,  their  mode  of 
replying  to  this  demand  amounts  to  a  surrender  of  the  argument. 
With  their  subterfuge  respecting  the  Quakers,  I  have  already 
shown  that  we  have  nothing  to  do. 

Dr.  Bowden  complains  that,  in  speaking  of  the  practical  influ- 
ence of  prelacy,  I  have  expressed  myself  in  terms  much  too  severe 
concerning  prelates  and  their  system.  He  complains  especially  of 
the  following  passage  :  "  If  we  examine  the  history  of  any  Episco- 
"  pal  Church  on  earth,  we  shall  find  it  exhibiting,  to  say  the  least, 
"  as  large  a  share  of  heresy,  contention,  and  schism,  as  any  which 
"  bears  the  Presbyterian  form  :  and  what  is  more,  we  shall  ever 
"  find  the  prelates  themselves  quite  as  forward  as  any  others  in 
u  scenes  of  violence  and  outrage."  He  asserts  that  "  these  charges 

*  Judgment  of  the  late  Archbishop  of  Armagh,  110—123.  .:~s£sz 

- 
o 


Oar 


478  LETTER  X. 


"  could  not  have  proceeded  from  a  proper  motive  ;"  and  that, iC  if 
"  they  were  even  well-founded,  they  ought  not  to  have  been  ad- 
«  vanced."  On  what  ground  Dr.  Bowden  should  have  taken  so 
nmrh  offence  at  this  passage,  it  is  not  easy  to  see.  Was  it  going 
either  an,  indecent  or  an  unreasonable  length,  when  I  was  fairly 
called  to  speak  on  the  subject,  to  say,  that  prelacy  has  been  proved 
to  be  quite  as  favourable  to  heresy,  contention,  and  schism,  as 
Presbyterianism  ;  and  prelates  as  chargeable  with  violence  and 
outrage  as  presbyters  ?  If  this  was  indecent,  then  what  shall  be 
said  of  this  gentleman  himself,  who  has  asserted  that  every  charge 
which  I  have  brought  against  prelacy  "  may  be  retorted  upon  pres- 
bytery, in  a  ten-fold  degree  ?  If  my  motives  were  bad  for  merely 
alleging  that  Presbyterians  stand  on  as  good  ground,  with  regard 
to  the  practical  influence  of  their  system,  as  Episcopalians  do ;  what 
must  have  been  the  motives  of  Dr.  B.  in  alleging  that  the  former 
are  ten-fold  zoorse  than  the  latter  ?  What  must  have  been  his  mo- 
tives in  expressing  himself  frequently  in  much  more  severe  and 
indelicate  terms  of  Presbyterians  and  Presbytery  ?  But  the  cases 
are,  in  his  estimation,  essentially  different.  The  abuse  of  Presby- 
terians is  no  crime.  That  this  must  be  his  opinion  is  evident  from 
the  reproachful  charges  which  he  unreservedly  heaps  upon  them, 
in  those  very  parts  of  his  work  in  which  he  censures  me  for  my 
unexceptionable  comparison. 

Dr.  Bowden  still  insists  that  there  is  peculiar  efficacy  in  the 
episcopal  form  of  government  in  securing  the  unity  of  the  Church  ; 
and  undertakes  to  give  a  contrasted  view  of  Presbyterian  and  Epis- 
copal churches  with  respect  to  this  point.  I  utterly  deny  the  cor- 
rectness of  his  alleged  facts  on  this  subject;  and  have  no  fear  in 
repeating  my  assertion,  that  the  history  of  any  number  of  Episco- 
pal Churches  exhibits  quite  as  large  a  share  of  heresy,  contention, 
schism,  as  the  history  of  any  corresponding  number  of  Presby- 
terian Churches.  I  am  perfectly  willing  to  go  for  an  example  to 
the  Church  of  England,  or  to  any  part  of  the  world,  where  pre- 
lacy has  ever  existed  ;  and  am  sure  that  no  impartial  student  of 
ecclesiastical  history  will  be  of  a  different  opinion.  What  does  Dr. 
Bowden  mean  by  unity,  as  applied  to  a  church  ?  Does  he  mean 
unity  of  spirit  or  unity  of  name  ?  If  the  latter,  then  no  one  who 
understands  Christianity  can  respect  or  value  it :  if  the  former,  then 
it  may  be  shown,  that  the  church  of  England,  (which  probably 


CONCLUSION.  479 

Dr.  B.  would  consider  as  the  most  favourable  specimen  the  world 
has  ever  seen,)  is,  and  has  long  been,  as  much  a  stranger  to  it,  as 
any  of  her  neighbours.  If  all  manner  of  discordant  sentiment;  if 
every  grade  of  heresy,  from  that  of  Arminius,  to  the  cold,  gloomy, 
semi-deistical  scheme  of  Socinus  ;  if  the  constant  public  manifesta- 
tion of  this  discordance,  and  of  these  contending  heresies  ;  and  that 
not  only  among  the  people,  and  the  inferior  clergy,  but  also  among 
the  prelates  themselves;  if  embracing  multitudes  of  clerey  who 
disbelieve  her  articles,  who  dislike  her  liturgy,  and  who  yet  have 
consciences  which  admit  of  their  canonically  swearing  to  the  belief 
and  support  of  both  ; — if  these  things  constitute  unity,  then  indeed 
she  may  be  said  to  possess  it.  But  this  is  a  kind  of  unity  of  which 
the  apostles  knew  nothing,  and  which,  if  they  were  now  on  earth, 
they  would  pronounce  of  no  value.  There  is  unspeakably  more 
real  unity  among  all  the  different  portions  of  Presbyterians  in  the 
United  States,  though  called  by  different  names,  than  exists,  or 
has  for  near  200  years  existed,  in  the  Church  of  England,  though 
nominally  one.  They  have  the  same  confession  of  faith,  the  same 
mode  of  worship,  the  same  form  of  church  government,  and  are, 
in  all  important  points,  so  entirely  united,  that  many  of  their  best 
members  often  wonder  and  lament,  that  they  are  not  one  in  name 
as  well  as  in  reality. 

With  respect  to  the  doctrine  of  uninterrupted  succession,  I  have 
little  to  add  to  what  is  contained  in  my  former  letters.  Dr.  Bow- 
den  is  indeed  right  in  suspecting  that  I  lay  no  great  stress  on  this 
doctrine,  as  he  understands  and  states  it.  That  there  always  has 
been,  since  the  days  of  Christ,  and  that  there  always  will  be  to  the 
end  of  the  world,  a  true  church,  and  a  true  and  valid  gospel  min- 
istry, in  that  church,  I  firmly  believe.  But  as  to  the  historical 
proof  that  this  succession  in  the  ministry  has  never  been  interrupt- 
ed, by  any  event  which  'might  be  called  an  irregular  or  unca- 
nonical  ordination,  I  neither  care  for  ita  nor  believe  in  it. 

The  promise  of  the  Saviour  that  neither  the  church  nor  her  min- 
istry shall  ever  become  extinct,  is  enough  to  satisfy  me.  That  the 
succession  in  this  ministry  will  be  kept  up  in  the  same  exact  man- 
ner in  every  age,  I  consider  neither  scripture  nor  common  sense  as 
requiring  me  to  believe.  There  is  no  Presbyterian  who  contends 
more  zealously  for  a  strict  adherence  to  ecclesiastical  rules  than  I 


480  LETTER    X. 

am  disposed  to  do  ;  nor  one  who  deems  it  of  more  importance  that 
we  set  our  faces  against  every  kind  of  spurious  investiture,  and  that 
we  retain  the  scriptural  method  of  ordination  by  the  laying  on  of 
the  hands  of  the  presbytery  ;  yet  I  have  no  hesitation  in  saying, 
that  if  it  were  to  be  discovered,  that,  about  two  hundred  or  Jive 
hundred  years  ago,  the  regular  succession  of  our  ordinations  had 
been  really  interrupted  by  some  ecclesiastical  oversight  or  disorder, 
I  should  not  consider  it  as  in  the  least  degree  affecting  either  the 
legitimacy  of  our  present  ministry,  or  the  validity  of  our  present 
ordinances. 

The  learned  and  acute  episcopal  divine  Chillingworth,  if  I  under- 
stand him,  takes  the  same  ground,  and  views  the  subject  in  the 
same  light.  Though  he  is  a  warm  advocate  for  the  apostolical  in- 
stitution of  prelacy  ;  yet  he  evidently  considers  the  doctrine  of 
uninterrupted  succession,  and  especially  the  idea  of  attaching  fun- 
damental importance  to  it,  as  a  popish  error  5  and  the  historic 
proof  of  the  fact  as  equally  ridiculous  and  impossible.* 

Dr.  Bowden,  however,  objects  that,  even  on  Presbyterian  princi- 
ples, the  episcopal  succession  is  better  than  ours ;  or  rather  that 
ours  is  utterly  invalid,  because,  at  the  sera  of  the  reformation,  the 
presbyters,  in  different  parts  of  Europe,  who  first  began  to  ordain, 
had  not  the  ordaining  power  specifically  orprofessedly  imparted 
to  them  by  the  bishops  who  ordained  them ;  so  that  they  did  not 
even  stand  on  equal  ground  with  modern  Presbyterian  ministers  j  on 
whom  in  their  ordination,  the  ordaining  power  is  formally  bestow- 
ed. But  this  objection  has  no  force.  The  popish  doctrine,  "  that 
it  is  the  intention  of  the  administrator  which  constitutes  the  validity 
of  an  ecclesiastical  ordinance,"  is  discarded  by  all  protestants. 
And  as  the  first  presbyters  who  undertook  to  ordain,  after  emerging 
from  the  darkness  of  popery,  were  regularly  invested  with  the 
power  of  preaching  the  gospel,  and  administering  sacraments,  all 
Presbyterians  consider  the  right  to  ordain  as  necessarily  included 
in  those  powers,  whether  the  fact  be  mentioned,  or  even  thought  of 
at  the  time  of  ordination  or  not. 

Dr.  Bowden,  toward  the  close  of  his  last  letter,  expresses  much 
irritated  feeling  at  my  having  represented  clerical  imparity  as  a 

*  See  his  Safe  Way  of  Salvation,  Part  i.  Chapters  2.  and  6. 


CONCLUSION.  481 

"popish  doctrine."  He  demands,  in  a  tone  to  which  I  forbear  to 
give  a  name,  whether  I  "  know  what  popery  is  ?"  In  the  next 
page  he  calls  upon  me  to  "  lay  my  hand  upon  my  heart,  and  in 
"  the  fear  of  God  to  say,  whether  I  do  not  think  that  I  have  most 
"  grossly  libelled  the  whole  Episcopal  church  throughout  the 
"  world  ;"  and  adds,  that  "  something  explicit  upon  this  point  will 
"  be  expected  from  me."  This  good  gentleman  shall  have  "  some- 
thing explicit."  Let  me  assure  him,  then,  that,  after  the  most  se- 
rious and  conscientious  review  of  all  that  I  have  written,!  am  so 
far  from  thinking  that  I  have  "  libelled"  the  episcopal  church  in 
representing  prelacy  as  a  "  popish  doctrine,"  that  all  my  inquiries 
convince  me,  more  than  ever,  of  the  justness  of  my  representation, 
and  embolden  me  to  repeat  and  urge  it  with  new  confidence.  In 
answer  to  Dr.  Bowderi's  question,  what  is  popery?  I  answer, 
Popery,  strictly  speaking,  as  was  remarked  in  a  former  letter,  is 
the  ecclesiastical  supremacy  usurped  by  the  bishop  of  Rome.  But, 
more  generally  speaking,  it  implies  that  system  of  corruption, 
both  in  doctrine,  government,  and  practice,  which  characterizes, 
and  has,  for  nearly  fifteen  hundred  years,  characterized  the 
Romish,  or  Latin  church.  Hence  transubstantiation,  purga- 
tory, auricular  confession,  the  worship  of  images,  the  invocation 
of  saints,  and  the  adoration  of  the  cross,  are  all  spoken  of  by  the 
most  accurate  writers,  as  popish  errors  ;  although  most  of  them 
had  crept  into  the  church,  long  before  the  period  which  Dr.  Bow- 
den  assigns  for  the  rise  of  the  papal  usurpation  ;  and  although  none 
of  them,  excepting  perhaps  the  first,  could  ever  be  traced  to  the 
Roman  pontiff  himself  as  their  immediate  author. 

I  say  then,  again,  that,  in  this  sense,  clerical  imparity  is  a  "  po- 
pish error,"  nearly  coeval  in  its  rise  with  the  commencement  of 
the  papacy  5  originating  from  the  same  source ;  and  tending,  in  a 
degree,  to  the  same  mischief.  And  though  I  would  by  no  means 
place  the  former  of  these  errors  on  a  par  with  the  latter ;  nor  ven- 
ture to  pronounce  the  one,  as  I  do  the  other,  an  anti Christian 
abuse,  being  fully  persuaded  that  many  of  the  greatest  and  best 
men  that  ever  lived  have  been  friends  of  prelacy ;  yet  all  my  in- 
quiries have  more  and  more  confirmed  me  in  the  persuasion,  that 
it  is  a  real  and  a  mischievous  departure  from  apostolic  simplicity, 
and  that  it  first  arose  from  the  same  principle  of  clerical  ambition 
which  gave  rise  to  the  papacy.  I  hope  this  is  "  explicit"  enough 
3  P 


482  LETTER  X. 

Nor  is  this  all.    When  I  look  over  the  charges  and  reasonings 
urged  by  the  popish  writers,  against  the  Waldemes  and  Albigen- 
ses,  as  they  are  preserved  and  exhibited  in  Perrm's  history  of  those 
illustrious  witnesses  for  the  truth;  when  I  read  the  language  used 
by  the  popish  persecutors  of  the  English  reformers,  as  it  is  record- 
ed in  different  parts  of  Fox's  Acts  and  Monuments  ;  when  I  ex- 
amine the  cavils  and  objections  made  by  Harding,  Saunders,  Sta- 
pleton,  Campian,  and  other  zealous  Catholics,  against  the  church  of 
England;  and  when  I  look  into  the  writings  which  Chillingworth, 
in  his  Safe  Way  of  Salvation,  examines  and  refutes,  I  could  almost 
fancy  myself  listening  to  the  pleas  of  some  high-toned   Episcopa- 
lians in  the  United  States  against  their  Presbyterian  neighbours. 
Could  you  make  it  convenient  to  examine  those  writings  for  your- 
selves, you  would  find  in  them  so  large  a  portion  of  the  same  rea- 
sonings, and  the  same  language,  which  are  now  found  in  certain 
episcopal  writers ;  so  much  of  the  same  cry,  in  exactly  or  nearly 
the  same  words,   about  the  church !  the  true  church  !  the  apos- 
tolic church  !  so  much   of  the  same  kind  of  charges,  respecting 
schism,  departure  from  the  covenanted  way  of  salvation,  loss  of 
the  apostolic  succession,  and  having  no  true  priesthood,  or  valid 
ordinances,  as  would  fill  you  with  astonishment,  if  not  with  emo- 
tions of  a  more  unfavourable  nature.  Nor  would  your  astonishment 
be  at  all  diminished  by  finding,  as  you  would  find,  that  the  friends 
of  the  Church  of  England,  in  defending  themselves  and  their  cause 
against  the   writers  in  question,   resorted,  in  a  multitude  of  in- 
stances, to  the  very  same  scriptural  authorities,  and  the  very  same 
arguments,  which  Presbyterians  employ  against   the  high-toned 
prelatists  of  the  present  day  ! — Reflect  seriously  on  these  facts, 
and  then  ask  yourselves,  whether  Dr.  Bowden  has  any  just  reason 
to  complain  of  me  for  speaking  of  an  affinity  between  his  claims 
and  those  of  popery  ?  1  have,  indeed,  repeatedly  suggested  the  idea 
of  such  an  affinity,  and  distinctly  meant  to  do  so.    I  have  done  it, 
however,  without  passion,  and  without  any  wish  to  give  unneces- 
sary pain  ;  but  with  a  calm,  deliberate,  and  firm  conviction,  that 
the  suggestion  was  well-founded.    And  I  can  assure  the  gentlemen 
who  have  written  so  much  and  so  resentfully  for  the  purpose  of  re- 
moving it,  that  their  publications  are  far,  very  far,  from  having  di- 
minished the  force  of  this  conviction. 


CONCLUSION.  483 

I  have  now,  my  brethren,  completed  my  examination  of  such 
parts  of  Dr.  Bowden's  and  Mr.  How's  letters  as  I  deem  worthy  of 
notice.  It  was  my  intention,  after  the  example  of  the  former  of 
these  gentlemen,  to  collect  and  present  in  one  view,  a  catalogue  of 
the  "  misrepresentations,"  "  unfounded  assertions,5'  "  mistakes," 
and  "  omissions,"  with  which  their  pages  abound.  But  finding 
these  "  misrepresentations,"  &c.  to  be  so  numerous,  that  a  mere 
list  of  them,  without  comment,  would  fill  another  long  letter  ;  and 
many  of  them  of  so  disreputable  and  offensive  a  character  as  not 
to  be  contemplated,  even  by  opponents,  without  much  commiser- 
ation for  their  authors  ;  I  have  determined  to  spare  myselfthe  pain 
of  writing,  and  you  of  reading  such  a  letter;  and  here  to  take  a 
final  leave  of  the  subject.  I  engaged  in  this  controversy,  without 
the  least  expectation  of  convincing  Episcopalians,  or  of  bringing 
over  to  my  own  opinion  an  individual  of  that  communion ;  but 
solely  for  the  purpose  of  satisfying  and  confirming  Presbyterians. 
My  object,  I  have  the  pleasure  to  know,  is  attained  ;  and  perceiv- 
ing no  further  advantage  in  prolonging  the  controversy,  I  now 
lay  down  the  pen ;  nor  can  I  foresee  any  event  that  will  ever  tempt 
me  to  resume  it  on  this  subject. 

I  take  for  granted  that  all  the  gentlemen  who  have  already  ap- 
peared as  my  opponents,  will  again  come  before  the  public  in  reply 
to  these  letters  ;  and  will  endeavour  to  persuade  their  readers  that 
I  have  again  misrepresented  them  and  their  cause,  and  again  laid 
myself  open  to  the  heaviest  charges  and  the  severest  reproach.  All 
this  and  more  I  deliberately  expect  from  gentlemen  who  have 
generally  manifested  a  wish  to  have  the  last  word.  Should  my 
expectation  be  realized,  it  will  give  me  no  uneasiness  ;  nor  shall  I 
ever,  (according  to  my  present  views,)  take  the  least  public  notice 
of  any  thing  that  they  may  say.  If,  indeed,  I  should  hereafter 
discover  any  important  errors  in  the  foregoing  pages,  (trivial 
ones,  which  do  not  afiect  the  main  question,  will  probably  be  dis- 
covered and  pointed  out,)  I  shall  consider  it  as  a  duty  which  I  owe 
to  you  to  correct  them.  But  with  the  controversy,  as  such,  it  is 
my  firm  resolution  to  have  nothing  more  to  do.  This  resolution 
is  formed  and  expressed,  not  out  of  any  disrespect  to  the  gentlemen 
in  question ;  but  from  a  deliberate  conviction  that  enough  has  been 
said  on  the  Presbyterian  side  of  the  argument ;  and  that  my  time 


484  LETTER  X. 

and  pen  may  be  hereafter  devoted  to  objects  more  agreeable  to 
myself,  and  more  useful  to  others. 

That  the  high-toned  class  of  our  episcopal  brethren  will,  in  any 
respect,  alter  their  tone,  either  of  speaking  or  writing,,!  have  no 
expectation  ;  nor  have  I  the  least  anxiety  that  they  should.  Hav- 
ing provided  the  antidote,  I  am  perfectly  indifferent  how  often  or 
how  long  the  poison  may  be  disseminated.  Let  them  hereafter 
sing  the  praises  of  their  il  truly  primitive  and  apostolic  church," 
as  loudly  and  as  confidently  as  they  please.  Let  them  arrogate 
to  themselves  the  honour  of  having  the  only  true  priesthood,  and 
the  only  valid  ordinances  in  the  land.  Let  them  embrace  every 
occasion  of  pronouncing  that  we,  as  Presbyterians,  are  rebels  and 
schismatics,  and  out  of  the  covenanted  way  of  salvation.  I  trust, 
my  brethren,  that  riot  an  individual  among  us  has  any  feelings 
which  are  capable  of  being  wounded  by  such  language.  It  is,  in- 
deed, rather  fitted  to  excite  our  pity,  than  our  resentment  5  and  is, 
certainly,  much  more  disreputable  to  its  authors,  than  to  its  objects. 

That  it  is  our  earnest  desire  to  live  in  peace  and  harmony  with 
our  brethren  of  the  episcopal  church,  you  can  all  bear  witness.  For 
them,  I  can  truly  say,  that  I  entertain  a  high  respect ;  and  am  hap- 
py to  number  individuals  of  that  communion  among  my  most 
valued  friends.  I  know,  also,  that  many  of  that  denomination 
entirely  disapprove,  and  deeply  lament,  the  offensive  writings  of 
their  own  clergy,  which  have  produced  this  controversy.  Were 
I  capable  of  applying  to  such  persons  many  of  the  remarks  which 
I  have  been  compelled  to  apply,  in  the  foregoing  pages,  to  Dr. 
Boioden  and  Mr.  How,  I  should  deem  myself  one  of  the  most  un- 
candid  and  unjust  of  men.  And,^I  will  add,  that  it  would  give 
me  much  pain,  if  any  thing  in  this,  or  my  preceding  volume,  should 
be  considered  as  pointing  at  Episcopalians  of  that  liberal  class. 
Differences  of  opinion  there  are,  and  will  be,  between  us  ;  but  if 
these  differences  are  maintained  on  both  sides  with  that  spirit 
which  the  Holy  Ghost  teacheth,  they  will  neither  foster  the  wrath 
of  man,  nor  interfere  with  real  Christian  unity.  Continue,  then, 
I  intreat  you,  to  cherish  on  your  part  a  spirit  of  amity  and  concili- 
ation whatever  reception  it  may  meet  with.  Be  always  ready  to 
exhibit  your  share,  and  more  than  your  share,  of  this  temper.  And 
then,  whatever  may  be  the  result,  it  will  turn  to  you  for  a  testimo- 
ny. Remember  that  the  haughty  language,  or  the  unscriptural 


CONCLUSION.  485 

claims  of  the  most  uncharitable  of  our  episcopal  brethren,  cannot 
possibly  injure  us  ;  but  that  we  shall  always  injure  ourselves  exact- 
ly in  proportion  as  we  lose  sight  of  that  holy  spirit  which  adorned 
and  united  the  disciples  of  Christ  in  the  days  of  apostolic  purity, 
and  which  compelled  even  their  enemies  to  exclaim,  "  Behold  how 
these  Christians  love  one  another." 

Whether  your  pastors  are  lawful  ministers,  and  the  ordinances 
which  they  dispense  legitimate  ordinances,  are  questions  which, 
happily,  it  is  not  for  Dr.  Bowchn  and  Mr.  How  to  decide.  There 
is  a  day  approaching  when  they  will  be  decided  before  a  higher 
tribunal,  and  with  consequences  more  interesting  than  language 
can  express.  Happy  will  it  be  for  us,  if  in  that  day,  we  shall  all 
be  found  members  of  that  holy  church,  which  the  Divine  Redeemer 
hath  purchased  with  his  blood,  and  adorned  with  his  Spirit !  Happy 
will  it  be  for  your  ministers,  if  they  shall  be  found,  in  that  day,  to 
have  preached  not  themselves,  but  Christ  Jesus  the  Lord,  and 
themselves  your  servants  for  Jesus'  sake  !  And  happy  will  it  be 
for  you,  my  brethren,  if  it  shall  then  appear  that  you  have  not  rest- 
ed in  rites  and  forms  ;  but  that  you  have  received  the  truth  in  the 
love  of  it ;  that  Christ  has  been  formed  in  you  the  hope  of  glory  ; 
and  that  you  belong  to  that  chosen  generation,  that  royal  priest- 
hood^ that  holy  nation,  that  peculiar  people,  who  shall  for  ever 
show  forth  the  praises  of  Him  who  hath  called  them  out  of  dark- 
ness into  his  marvellous  light  !  That  this  blessedness  may  be 
shared  by  you,  and  equally  by  them  also,  whom,  in  this  contro- 
versy, we  have  been  called  to  oppose,  is  the  unfeigned  prayer  of, 
My  Christian  Brethren, 

Your  affectionate  Servant  in  the  Gospel, 

SAMUEL  MILLER. 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 
BERKELEY 

Return  to  desk  from  which  borrowed. 
This  book  is  DUE  on  the  last  date  stamped  below. 


RECEIVED 

MAY  14  bB 

LOAN  DEPT. 

LD  21-100m-9,'47(A5702sl6)476 


OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 

v  <*      ' 


